How much time should combat take in a 4 hour session?

[Vectros]

I ask this, since there's a player who's saying it's dragging out too long. I'm a fan of combat-it's my favorite of the three "pillars", so I'd say it make sense my sessions might have a bit more than average. But I don't think I've been over the top. Today's session went for about 3.5 hours-I didn't keep tabs on the exact time, but I think combat lasted around 1.5 hours. The session cut out a bit early-there wouldn't have been any more combat.

So in a typical 4 hour session, is 1.5 hours too much? What would be your lower and upper limits?

While I'm at it, this same player tends to complain about the...style of combat. He asks that I nerf the HP of mooks so they're 1 shot to shorten combat, doesn't want his character to die (unless it's a big boss encounter), and doesn't want large numbers of enemies...and also thinks a lone boss is a bad idea. I kind of agree on the last point, but feel he's maybe being a bit picky...

[Koo Rehtorb]

What game are you playing?

Anyway there's no average answer. It varies by system, group, and session.

[Winter_Wolf]

I've played games where combat goes from zero to whole session, so there's no one size fits all answer here. That said I like combat when it's not say D&D 3.5 and a regular encounter takes up to an hour (it's happened repeatedly). I'm more in the mindset of (potentially) combat encounters are frequent but the fighting doesn't drag out for any one combat that isn't the focus of the session, a la the final shodown against the actual big bad.

But really it sounds like play style incompatibility more than anything. There might be a middle ground where everyone's happy, but in my experience the middle ground usually is occupied by no one being happy. Then again I know neither you nor your player.

[Vectros]

Oh, huh, thought I posted in the 5E board, odd. Anyways, this pertains to 5E.

[Martin Greywolf]

Anywhere from no combat to all combat, depending on the game - I've run sessions that were a six-hour stretch of pretty much non-stop fighting (that's what happens when your PCs kick of a climatic war during a last session of a campaign) to sessions that saw very little to no fights (usually via crafty use of diplomacy and bribery).

If you're running a DnD game, then anything under half of game time is okay, DnD is pretty much a combat game. It's like picking up a FPS and complaining about all the shooting going on.

However, one of your players doesn't seem to like combat-heavy games, so you should definitely do something. Problem is, this isn't something you should discuss with that player, this is something that your entire group needs to agree on. And ultimately, if you like running combat-heavy games, then no one should force you to do something you don't like. There''s nothing stopping that player from DMing, after all, it may even be a nice change of pace for all of you.

In the end, your entire group needs to talk this through.

[Stealth Marmot]

The answer is always "As long as you want it to take".

Some groups may have nonstop combat with only a little respite for shopping. Others may have rare combats with intrigue and roleplaying being most of the "encounters".

There is no "wrong" amount of combat in a D&D game, but given that you are playing D&D and not a different system, most likely the players want some combat.

The 1HP mook idea can help with speeding up encounters, but keep in mind that it will fundamentally change how mooks work and what their use in combat will be. Frankly it sounds like this player just wants to keep playing a 4e game.

You can listen to a players suggestions or gripes, but remember you are the DM and you make the decisions, and when a player gets this specific, you might want to tell them that they are starting to step on your toes. Also inform him that you are not comfortable with messing with the fundamentals of a game's balance without more experience with it.

On that not however, you might want to explore your own options into making the encounters a little less deadly and instead work some other angles. Keep in mind that he is worried about character death, but consider that characters have more than hit points to worry about. Enemies that do stat damage can be harsh towards a character's daily strength without being one crit from death (so long as it isn't Constitution damage). Having a giant spider who does strength damage could take your fighter for a lot of their wroth without risking a crit-death. An intellect devourer, or even just some rats who give the characters filth fever. Keep in mind, however, the difference between ability DAMAGE and ability DRAIN. Ability damage is annoying, Ability Drain will result in strangulation from your players and possible castration.

Not all hazards need to be hit point related.

[Jay R]

Each individual encounter should end when it stops being suspenseful. Once the players know that they've won, the enemies should flee, surrender, or set off their big trap.

[Mr Beer]

As much as is fun, which is obviously extremely subjective. Seems like this player wants less/faster combat. How does everyone else feel? Endless grinding can be boring as hell but probably not as bad as say, giving someone the opportunity to emote for 4 hours because they didn't get to run the end of year play at highschool. Maybe find out how others feel about this, also how you feel about it matters since you're running the game. You can throw some players a bone and they're happy, some players will complain no matter what.

Also, the specific complaints/suggestions raised:

1. Mook rules. I'm using mook rules right now for a game, but that's because I'm running a wall-to-wall dungeon grind with GURPS as the system and frankly it's a massive PITA to constantly track exact HP for 20+ goons all the way down the death spiral. YMMV.

2. Plot armour for his PC. That's a no from me, I try to tilt non-boss encounters towards PC victory but bad luck is a thing.

3. Lone boss is a bad idea. Not sure why someone who wants a faster fight dislikes a solo boss but whatever. I lean to minions simply because I'm using GURPS and solo bosses are vulnerable to being swarmed with dodge-or-die attacks e.g. two high point fighters gang up and make multiple attacks targeting the boss's eyes while the mage throws cheap but effective tactical spells every round.

[Vectros]

After reading through everything here, I've decided to just poll the group individually on what they think. Though it's good to know there isn't a real "limit" to most people. What I am getting out of this is...whatever fits and makes sense is what I should go with. Particularly given that I'm fairly certain 2 of the 4 members enjoy combat more than anything.

[Stealth Marmot]

If combat lasts more than 4 hours consult a physician.

[Gravitron5000]

If combat lasts more than 4 hours consult a physician.

If combat lasts less than 2 minutes, consult a mortician.

[Psikerlord]

I like about half a session to be combat. For a 4 hour block, I'd be hoping for 2 x 1 hr or less fights.

[ad_hoc]

1/3 of the session on average sounds about right. I like the pillars too.

As someone else said, combats should end when the tension ends.

I will often just narrate the end of combats. Even if it is with enemies who won't run (like zombies) if they have clearly succeeded in defeating them I will just narrate that they successfully destroy the remaining ones.

[Cespenar]

For people that can't game as often or as long as they'd like (due to time reasons), spending 1.5 hours of your precious session on non-dramatic mook combat may prove taxing after a while. It's understandable. You may:

-Consult all players to get their feelings.
-Cut filler combats back a little.
-Find ways to quicken the fights, like time limits on player rounds, sleek book-keeping, party initiative, etc.
-Spice up the combats. Add environment hazards, elevation issues, 3rd parties, etc.
-Try to insert more roleplaying into your combats.
-Insert more realistic surrenders to your combats. Animals might run when obviously overpowered, mooks may surrender when down to 1-2 men, etc.

[Pugwampy]

If its a castle siege defence encounter it should take a whole session or two

If its a set piece encounter , an hour is good

If its a normal average meh encounter 30 minutes .


Make the timing varied to keep it fresh . I imagine half your 4 hour session should be combat .

[mgshamster]

Grab some Adventurer's League modules and read over those for an idea of how much time combat should take.

Those Adventures are designed to be either 2 or 4 hours long.

For example, here's what DDEX 1-9 says:

Part 1: 30 minutes (combat, social)
Part 2A: 30 minutes (exploration, social)
Part 2B: 30 minutes (combat, social)
Part 3*: 120 minutes (combat, social, exploration)
Part 4: 30 minutes (combat)

*Main segment of the module; up to 7 combat encounters, it is not expected the PCs will face every encounter

Reading through the module, there's a potential for 10 combats, and most of them look like they won't last more than 5-10 minutes of gameplay, except the last one.

Heck, the first combat is with five commoners that you aren't expected to fight, you instead scare them off with persuasion and intimidation checks.

Even with that, adding up the expected time, were looking at about 1.5-2 hours of combat for a 4 hour game. And this is a combat heavy module.

If we compare that to DDAL 5-6 and 5-7 (Two 2-hour modules that are designed to be played in sequence), the first module has three combats. The first one took about 10 minutes, the second was over in one round, and the third took about 20 minutes. The second module has two combats, each took about 10 minutes. For those two modules, combat tool up about 0.5-1 hour of the four hour session. The first module also had quite a bit of social and exploration; the second module was primarily exploration with a sprinkling of social (takes place in an abandoned wizards tower).

Go ahead and pick up a few of them to get a feel of how much time combat should take. Maybe run them, or go to a hobby store and play some.

In general, I feel that a combat-light session should have 0-0.5 hours of combat. A combat-light session should have 0.5-1 hours of combat. And a combat-heavy session should have 1.5-2.5 hours of combat. On the extreme end, and entire session may be combat, but those should be rare and very important to the story. For example, the last all-combat session I've run was the final battle in Out of the Abyss, where each player took control of one Demon Lord for an all out brawl, and the winner of that fight had to face the PCs.

[silveralen]

I ask this, since there's a player who's saying it's dragging out too long. I'm a fan of combat-it's my favorite of the three "pillars", so I'd say it make sense my sessions might have a bit more than average. But I don't think I've been over the top. Today's session went for about 3.5 hours-I didn't keep tabs on the exact time, but I think combat lasted around 1.5 hours. The session cut out a bit early-there wouldn't have been any more combat.

So in a typical 4 hour session, is 1.5 hours too much? What would be your lower and upper limits?

While I'm at it, this same player tends to complain about the...style of combat. He asks that I nerf the HP of mooks so they're 1 shot to shorten combat, doesn't want his character to die (unless it's a big boss encounter), and doesn't want large numbers of enemies...and also thinks a lone boss is a bad idea. I kind of agree on the last point, but feel he's maybe being a bit picky...

Well, in terms of sheer time, I find I agree with you. Around 1-1.5 hours in a 4 hour session is what I normally do.

However, as with anything that time can feel much much longer depending on how it's spaced out and how the combat itself flows. I'm going to list a few things that I've noticed can help make combat feel less like a chore for players, because I recognize a couple of those complaints as ones I've dealt with before.


1. Try to avoid back to back combat encounters. This is basically why traps and secret doors exist even in most dungeon hacky of DnD campaigns.

2a. More encounters over longer encounters, for the same reason as above. It can reduce danger for the party a bit, but breaking up enemies into smaller more quickly dealt with groups can lead to a greater sense of progress.

Alternatively

2b. More lethal but shorter encounters can work as well. It may be worth upping enemy lethality and scaling back their resilience to make combat feel less grindy while still feeling dangerous. This can also be accomplished by careful selection of enemies as well, though casters and similar can actually slow things down further if you aren't careful.

3. Mix in weak enemies that go down quick. Enemies on CR often feel a bit damage spongy, and even if you do use the other suggestions having notably weaker enemies for players to one shot can give them an immediate sense of progress.

[Farecry]

This could also be caused by a pacing issue in combat where players are taking too long to act when it's there turn.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would suggest looking less at the length of combat proportional to the length of the session, and instead look at the length of combat relative to what is actually happening.

For example, taking 3 hours to storm the salamander-infested volcano fortress of the great red dragon Taraxilis, Prince of Devastation is quite reasonable (might even be making good time). In contrast, taking 3 hours to kill a small kobold patrol is an indication that your combat is probably taking a lot longer than it should. Well, that or you're facing Tucker's Kobolds.

Here's my personal test for whether combat is taking too long: Let's say that I've just finished my turn in the initiative order. Do I have time to go and make a sandwich before either my turn comes back around or something happens that will require some other action on my part (like rolling a saving throw)?

If the answer is 'yes' or 'probably', then combat is taking too long. Consider trying to get players to speed up on their turns and/or speeding up combat on your end.

[War_lord]

I find the two biggest causes of over long combat are "players vs too many weak enemies" (even if every enemy can be crushed easily, it takes a while to resolve everything) and "players keep digressing/pondering what to do" (every turn takes longer then it should). Still, I think your player is being rather unreasonable, it sounds like he just doesn't want to do combat, and if that's the case, he's playing the wrong game.

[rollingForInit]

Depends on what your group likes. You should try some variants and just go with what's most fun. Lots of tiny (4 goblins) encounters, or a couple of really big ones?

My group sometimes goes several sessions without combat, then we'll have one one combat that spans two sessions, then we'll have a 4-hour-session where the combat takes 1/3, and so it goes.

[pwykersotz]

Well, in terms of sheer time, I find I agree with you. Around 1-1.5 hours in a 4 hour session is what I normally do.

However, as with anything that time can feel much much longer depending on how it's spaced out and how the combat itself flows. I'm going to list a few things that I've noticed can help make combat feel less like a chore for players, because I recognize a couple of those complaints as ones I've dealt with before.


1. Try to avoid back to back combat encounters. This is basically why traps and secret doors exist even in most dungeon hacky of DnD campaigns.

2a. More encounters over longer encounters, for the same reason as above. It can reduce danger for the party a bit, but breaking up enemies into smaller more quickly dealt with groups can lead to a greater sense of progress.

Alternatively

2b. More lethal but shorter encounters can work as well. It may be worth upping enemy lethality and scaling back their resilience to make combat feel less grindy while still feeling dangerous. This can also be accomplished by careful selection of enemies as well, though casters and similar can actually slow things down further if you aren't careful.

3. Mix in weak enemies that go down quick. Enemies on CR often feel a bit damage spongy, and even if you do use the other suggestions having notably weaker enemies for players to one shot can give them an immediate sense of progress.

+1 to this.

In my experience, 5e combat is very fast. I can burn through any non-bloated fight in 20 minutes. Using my side-initiative variant sped that up (short version: roll init, monsters roll as one, first players higher than monsters go, then monsters, then all players, then all monsters). I've had some fights drag on, but those were against enemies with heavy terrain advantage and lots of HP.

Edit: However, my GM used an entire session of 4 hours to do a really slow 5e combat. He slowed it down by using regular initiative and re-describing the scene every time something changed on every turn. Couple that with some less experienced players who bog things down with indecision and a split party (some of whom didn't even know there was a fight), and it was pretty boring.

[RazorChain]

doesn't want his character to die (unless it's a big boss encounter)

This is the problem right there. We all come into the game with expectations and this players comes with the expectations that his character will survive.

WRONG

We all know what happens to people that suicidally wander into dank caves full of traps and monsters, there is a reason why those kind of people can't buy themselves a life insurance.


Just make all your encounter "big boss encounters" and he'll stop being mortally afraid of dying and happy to lose his character to something that is overwhelmingly superior.

If that fails then give him a xp penalty. In worst case scenario give him a treat of player unfavorite-ism until he wisens up.


Oh yeah...and combat usually just takes the time that is required to purge the land of evil. If there is a lot of evil then there will be lot of combat. Another approach is that combat ends when all the bad guys are dead. If more bad guys show up then more combat is required.

The only wrong amount of combat is a negative amount. That is just plain wrong...unless it's between consenting adults then it must be all right.

[Decstarr]

I've done entire sessions without any combat, as well as entire sessions full of combat. I'd say the key here is not only to find out what the players think but also why they feel like that.

E.g. in my group we have a fighter 10 Battlemaster, who is just insanely slow with his moves. It can easily take him 2-3 minutes to do his rolls and add them up - we've all been trying to get him to be faster, but it's just impossible with this guy. Which is frustrating at times. We have a Rogue 10 assassin, who has exactly one shot each turn (unless he's hasted). So if he misses his shot, he'll just sit around for about 4-5 minutes until all the others are done. It's pretty obvious that while the Rogue loves combat, he's also the one who likes to focus on social encounters the most. So in that particular case, as a DM I either try to limit the number of encounters - for the sake of all players - or I constantly throw big ass tanky dudes at them (so the others can do their moves while the fighter is still calculating the damage he just dealt).

Long story short: Try to find out why the person is bothered by "too much combat". Maybe it is not combat itself but the other players taking too long, his character being too weak or anything else that you could influence.

[furby076]

D&D has never been particularly good at combat speed. It just takes time, and increases with level. From players trying to react to the change of battlefield, to even reasonably knowledgeable players not knowing every inch of their character, to regular banter, to questions of whats going on, etc.

My experiences, for a table of 5 players, has been anywhere from 30 minutes (level 1) to entire 6-8 hour gaming sessions for very high level play. In the latter battles, we did have lunch/dinner break, and the DM did say at the start of the session it would be a battle.

We've tried different tricks: Rolling initiative one per combat, the DM having all his rolls ready before the game (written down), players having all their modifiers calculated, spell cards, etc. 2e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e it just takes time. Yes it can drag on - especially if your character got knocked out - but that is the system we have.

[Citan]

I ask this, since there's a player who's saying it's dragging out too long. I'm a fan of combat-it's my favorite of the three "pillars", so I'd say it make sense my sessions might have a bit more than average. But I don't think I've been over the top. Today's session went for about 3.5 hours-I didn't keep tabs on the exact time, but I think combat lasted around 1.5 hours. The session cut out a bit early-there wouldn't have been any more combat.

So in a typical 4 hour session, is 1.5 hours too much? What would be your lower and upper limits?

While I'm at it, this same player tends to complain about the...style of combat. He asks that I nerf the HP of mooks so they're 1 shot to shorten combat, doesn't want his character to die (unless it's a big boss encounter), and doesn't want large numbers of enemies...and also thinks a lone boss is a bad idea. I kind of agree on the last point, but feel he's maybe being a bit picky...

Hi!

Honestly, 1.5 hour seems a bit much to me, but it depends on too many factors to really give a proper opinion.

My gut would say though that what matters is not the "real" time but the "time as felt by players".
If your player feels the combat takes too much time, maybe it is not because the fight in itself is too long, but because you or your players take too much time deciding what to do each round and making the rolls, so that he feels more the botherdom of dice rolling and "mechanics management" much more than the excitation of that big fight!

For a more generalistic answer, I'd say that usually in sessions, I try to never go beyond 30 mn per encounter, and no more than 2 encounters at most. Often I make one "mind theater" to make it quick or creative, sometimes both.
Only on some occasions in a specific sessions do I use the drawed map, but in these times it is usually the one big fight that can easily go past 1 hour (never more than 1h30 though).

Yet again, it's very difficult to argue which duration is the correct one. It depends very much on factors such as...
- is it an important fight for the story?
- do players in general like to be creative?
- do you as a DM tend to be as strict as possible, or do you allow yourself leeway when players have a nice idea?
etc etc...

In short, my advice would be: ask your player what precisely bothered him and made him feel that way, and ask your other players if they share this opinion.

[BillyBobShorton]

Yeah, group talk is the way to go. Contrary to what some think, the DM isn't the table boss and it shouldn't be "my way or the highway"; but in the same regard, neither is 1 single player. A collective, equal input and compromise on all parts is the fair thing to do. If they all want more RP, then as DM, it's up to you to facilitate the fun. If you enjoy lots of combat, try to find a way to speed it up so they have more character time and everyone wins.

[Randomthom]

Just to weigh in with my 2c;
Combat can take too long and become a bore and there are many potential reasons behind this. I'll pose a number of problem/solution scenarios.

Problem: Enemies are many but weak making fights last a long time.
Solution: Reduce number of mooks, replace with environmental hazards (traps, natural features). Once the outcome of the combat is a foregone conclusion in the players' favour, describe the mooks retreat/surrender or have the players describe how they finish off the remaining mooks without dice rolls.

Problem: Players are taking too long with their turns.
Solution: Introduce a time limit on turns (suggest ~30s). This also means players will be rushed, bringing tension and errors that wouldn't have been made with 2-3 minute turns.

Problem: One player in particular takes too long with their turns.
Solution: Varies. Are they new? Give them time to get up to speed, we were all newbies once. Are they bad at arithmetic? Calculator ftw. Do they take too long to choose spells? Ask them to think about it before it reaches their turn, also spell cards are a MASSIVE time saver, get them! If it is the first time they are using a spell, take the time to read it together so that next time you can remind each other of how it works.

Problem: Bosses/mooks have too many hit points and fights are endless hack & slash.
Solution: Reduce HP, increase their damage. Fights just became more dangerous but also more exciting and also a bit more realistic. Also, intelligent bosses don't need to surrender at 0 hp, (RAW they'd be unconscious).

Problem: Player just doesn't like combat full-stop.
Solution: Find out if this opinion is group-wide. If yes, tone down combat a bit. If no try to cater to the player somewhat but don't change the overall tone. e.g. If 1 of 5 players wants to see less combat, try to make 1 of 5 sessions combat-light.

[Foxolicious]

I ask this, since there's a player who's saying it's dragging out too long. I'm a fan of combat-it's my favorite of the three "pillars", so I'd say it make sense my sessions might have a bit more than average. But I don't think I've been over the top. Today's session went for about 3.5 hours-I didn't keep tabs on the exact time, but I think combat lasted around 1.5 hours. The session cut out a bit early-there wouldn't have been any more combat.

So in a typical 4 hour session, is 1.5 hours too much? What would be your lower and upper limits?

While I'm at it, this same player tends to complain about the...style of combat. He asks that I nerf the HP of mooks so they're 1 shot to shorten combat, doesn't want his character to die (unless it's a big boss encounter), and doesn't want large numbers of enemies...and also thinks a lone boss is a bad idea. I kind of agree on the last point, but feel he's maybe being a bit picky...

For me as a new DM I ran into this problem and the way I solved combat taking to long was if it's just a regular battle no bosses just a bunch of bandits or hirelings make it so there easy to beat but when it comes to a boss battle have creatures with medium to high health and lots of abilities to keep the players on there toes.

Also give them terrain advantages and disadvantages. Hurtles for them to over come it will make battles more rewarding when finishing them

I usually go with one boss and 3 or 4 hirelings to make the battles a little more intense

[JenBurdoo]

To my way of thinking, it may be less about the length of time spent in combat than about how complex the combat is, especially in DnD. What I tend to dislike about combat is that thirty seconds of action can take an hour to work out, which is why I prefer rules-lite games where combat can be more narrative and the players aren't waiting for ages to get to their turns. Many games have crunchy combat with lots of options that interact in various ways - if you enjoy tactics or puzzles this may be fine but it sounds like this player might just not want to wait his turn. I like seeing combat be literally fast and furious; you shouldn't have to slow down right at the point where the story should be speeding up.