3 Reasons DnD Combat Feels Slow (And My 43-Year-Old Solution)

ABOUT EARTHMOTE:

This channel uses affiliate links, which support Earthmote at no additional cost to you.

______________________________________________

Resources I like and use:
______________________________________________
#dnd #osr #sandbox #ttrpg #dungeonsanddragons
_______________________________________________
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statue that might otherwise be infringing.

[JPMSkywizard]

I had to scribble down ‘psychedelic acid spray’ for my next monster. Perfectly useable in an Old school game.

[andrewhaldenby]

Morale and reaction rolls are key. We want monsters running away or surrendering, doing deals etc

[tetragono]

I used to play 2E and I fondly remember 5-hour sessions with 4-5 combats. During my last 5E session, a single combat of 9-10 rounds (one minute!) took 4 hours out of 5: I was one of only 3 players with no pets or sidekicks and we faced a crowd of 20+ humanoids with several casters coming at us in two waves, in a dungeon with narrow corridors and choke points. Unbalanced encounter design? Maybe. Player's analysis-paralysis and slow decision making? Probably. But when each player in mid tier 2 has several options for action, bonus action, movement split and reaction for their highly optimized multiclassed builds stuffed with feats, skills, spells and spell-like abilities, with the consequent occasional debate between RAW and RAI, that might happen. Bottom-line: at the end of the session the players had one level of exhaustion and the DM couldn't articulate properly. I won't remember that as a fun experience...

[EriktheRed]

At least from 3.X onwards, the thrill of a fight had to come from something other than the risk of failure. Adding options that allows you to do cool stuff was one way to keep the thrill.

If you're taking the life of your PC into your hands when you start a fight, you won't get bored easily.

[KonchIsDeadInside]

I think the issue really comes down to the HP pool.
Players and non-boss monsters just have too much health, which drags things out.
WFRP is very crunchy, a single round of combat in that can twice as long as a round in D&D but that one round is the equivalent of 3 or so rounds of D&D because a single hit on any character is so much more decisive.

[OldHeadAlan]

Sounds like 2nd Edition combat. Quick, to the point and deadly. Good times.

[Cuthbo]

B/X side based initiative is so good I port it into every game now. That d6 roll alters the flow of battle and keeps everyone on their toes. Simple but game changing.

[SlavicMoose]

Been implementing the ol glass cannon strat. Enemies have fewer HP but it's more meaningful if you get hit

[GlennJackson-de]

I appreciate that you have given a lot of thought to this. I've been playing and DMing for 50 years. I haven't noticed a great change in combat length or interactions. I have always started each round with "roll your initiative". I also roll initiative for the monsters when I DM (which is most of the time). I have battled against cell phones, teaching young players, and players who have short attention spans. I will tailor my encounters to suit the party of adventurers. As long as players enjoy the encounter, time doesn't matter much. Having monsters choose their targets is something a DM controls and can be used to make an encounter more interesting. Delaying the entry of some monsters can also give players a shock. The occasional monster fleeing can be a humor moment. A tricky monster will be remembered. All in all, I try to avoid multiple encounters that fall into a pattern of straight combat of four adventurers taking turns killing four monsters one on one. Everything, however, breaks down if you have a group that just abhors combat encounters. Good luck.

[HaltGrimbow]

My dad started me on OD&D when I was five, by the time I was seven, we were playing AD&D. We kept combat simple One initiative roll. one player rolls a d6 and the DM rolls a d6, highest number wins and that is how it would go. We almost gave up D&D when 4e came out because of the bloat on mechanics. In 5E I still run with the one initiative roll. For me with the rise of minis and landscapes on the table, I think people are so concerned about moving to flank and terrain constraints that they focus more on that than the theatre of the mind. I still just chart dungeons on graph paper and let my players ask questions of the room layout. The rogue might try and climb on a broken pillar to have LOS on a distant target. I try to keep them interested by not handing them terrain. I also roll for all my monster health, so I could roll terribly and have like an anemic dragon. The players get worried but a good round of combat could put them far a head.

[Barcodum]

I really like the Palladium/Rifts combat system. Init, winner rolls to strike, opponent can then roll to parry, dodge, or give up those options to simultaneous/counter strike. Damage for the round (if any) is figured, and rinse and repeat in a nutshell, that’s how it works. Yes, when you add Martial Arts and special training or weapons, cybernetics or other enhancements, things can bog down for a few rounds but even in Alpha’s vs 20 Invid Shock Troopers, things went fairly quickly. Except when they threw volleys of mini-missiles. Then the damage calculations could get sticky.

[antonwblake]

A decent middle-ground between sidebased and individual initiatives that I've used before is the initiative from Mothership 0e. Everyone rolls initiative, players that roll 1-10 go after the monster(s), and those that rolled 11-20 go before. It has some of the speed and combo move potential of sidebased, but with a little bit less of the possible swinginess you mention with using sidebased in 5e.

[RDQuodomine]

This where preparation and session zero, or session 0.X reboot really helps. Make sure players understand their characters.

1) have players write down "go to actions" for all 3 phases of DnD (combat, social interaction, exploration). For example, a warlock might say "Eldritch blast, deception, ghostly gaze, " or whatever. And rather than levels, organize actions and spells by these pillars.

If time is an issue with the session or the party in general:

2) set up a timer (1 minutes to choose, 1 minute to act in real time).
3) if time runs out, they can either defer action or default to the prepared action.

Switching games isn't easy, especially if you have new players, or even old ones.

[gabrielhersey]

DCC combat is much faster paced because mechanics are simplified and math is ultra simple while delivering epic cinematic theatrics of DnD

[stevencrofts]

We use Pathfinder 1e. I find the system is fast as along as the players know what they want to do at their turn. I have a good group so combat is normally quick. I do remember one of my player's wizard back in my 2nd edition D&D collage games that would take forever to decide what spell to use.

[DeGreyChristensen]

In the system I’ve been writing, I use a system of combat that uses what I call, “ladder initiative”. I The start of combat, I start with 1. Each action or weapon has a speed score. The score of whatever action the player wants to do is added to their personal initiative. As I continue to count, once their number comes up, they perform their action, dice are rolled and everything is resolved, then they declare their next action and add that speed score to their last initiative count. Then I keep counting. Players are keeping track of their own initiative and watching the battlefield change as they wait for their number to come up. This keeps them super engaged and preparing for their action. Most combat ends up being 10-15 minutes long and is super action packed and stressful (in a good way). It also helps that my system is a little more on the deadly side, so players are considering their moves very carefully.
Rather than track initiative for all the NPCs, each npc has a speed score between 2 and 5, meaning each npc of that type will go every second, third, fourth, or fifth initiative count based on type. I have a chart in my screen that has 30 counts with highlighted spots for each of those speeds showing on which counts they are to act. So I just declare the number, check my chart and if one of the npc speeds present in the battle shows up on that number, those NPCs perform an action if it makes sense for them to do so.

Characters can all move one space (or inch) per count as well, ideally getting into position to perform their actions when their number comes up. So players are also engaged moving their pieces as I continue counting and moving NPCs around.

Admittedly, this system is a little jarring for someone coming from a round-based combat system, but once the player wraps their head around it combat speeds up like crazy and all players are on the edge of their seat. As GM, I am only worrying about the NPCs and answering the occasional question about the battlefield or opponents for the players to make informed decisions. The players take care of themselves.

[macoppy]

At my table, these speed hacks work:

●The side that presents the threat goes first (PCs vs NPCs).
●Players take turns clockwise around the table.
●Each round, all actions resolve simultaneously; so a PC can save his buddy and be cut down at the same time. The dice arbitrate what succeeds or fails.

[alfonsovallejo]

I've played both with noob and experienced tables. 4 noobs players + me resulted on 15 to 20 minute rounds, sometimes even longer, just 2 of those minutes were dedicated to my turn. On the other hand, in the experienced table, the rounds lasted between 5 to 10 minutes, we all knew our character's abilities (not only ours, but also the rest of the party) like the palm of our hands and we knew exactly what to do in les than 1 minute of thinking, and the guys in the 4th and 5th turn took their turn in 1 minute both combined because they already had everything figured it out during their teammate's turn. So, no, D&D combat is not slow, players are slow.

[schemage]

You know, it's one thing to say that you crave simpler rulesets, but in doing so, there are elements that you lose that can make for enjoyable combat. I'm thinking of the super tactical options from pf2e like flanking, grappling, shoving etc. Things that make combat dynamic and interesting instead of just a hack-fest.

[RemnTheteth]

I like the notion of players being able to act together. For instance, it's now more possible to aid fallen teammates (one takes aid, another takes the help action to assist, two players are increasing the chances of a success). Or - two melee fighters rush onto an enemy at the same time, flanking it and possibly acquiring other bonuses (passive radius bonuses to attacks or saves, flank bonuses, etc.). Wombo spell combos - one could be a debuff, the other could be an attack spell. The converse is true as well, with NPC hordes actually acting as such, enemies working in tandem to corner off a spellcaster, that kind of thing. When you have individual turns, you simply think in a different way, acting in a vacuum.

You could keep everything else in 5e the same, and simply do the side-based initiative. Because it's all simultaneous, it doesn't matter if someone's action is narrated first or last. I think this would speed up rate of play. Also, it keeps every player engaged during both phases because they're not just acting alone, or waiting for their turn. Their turn is either first, or next, with a lot of chaos in-between.

This is so simple, and I can see how this could effect pacing for the better.

I think it also foments a notion of actual team work, rather than individually going, with monsters in between, rendering many combinations of possible actions sort of void.

As a hot take, I would also remove attacks of opportunity, or reduce damage on AoO (half damage or something), or allow everyone to bonus action disengage. The action economy for alternative actions in 5e renders basically anything but attacking very un-optimized. A lot of my combats end up in a pile in one spot because no one wants to move around (because they'll take damage). This is also true of NPC's or enemies, who would suffer from angling out of a situation, having to take their entire turn to do so, getting attacked, doing no damage, and then getting attacked again on subsequent player turns. Doing any of the above could make the physical combat more fluid, or at least reduce the penalty for attempting to get out of dodge. For example if you're low on HP and flanked by three enemies, in 5e you're just screwed. If you do the above, you'd be able to get out of harms way, cast a web spell, and at least hope for the best. Or you could run behind a pillar and hide, rendering the character untouchable to a lot of ranged attacks for their next turn. Or you could run away and heal. Or get out of dodge, run 20 feet back and fire an exploding arrow into the group, which you would have done with disadvantage before while possibly dying in the process.

I agree, complexity does not always equal more fun. Can be great, but needs to be used with care.