D&D 5E Where did the 6-8 encounter standard come from?

Li Shenron

Legend
I was curious. When 5e was first designed, it went through a lot of playtesting. From all of that work and playtesting, a key balancing assumption formed was 6-8 encounters in a day before a long rest.

Now I know several people on the forum (including myself) think that number is too high. But clearly it came from somewhere, and a lot of 5e was adjusted in the beginning due to player feedback.

Was this an area where players generally gave feedback that they did 6-8 encounters? Was it a poll question answered at some point?

That's a very good question... IIRC in 3e the assumption was more like 3-4 encounters per day.

I skipped 4e, but I vaguely remember that people in that era wanted more encounters per day, and maybe the AEDU system encouraged that, so perhaps this had an influence to 5e design?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zardnaar

Legend
3E was 4 encounters IIRC.

Playing AD&D 2E again and it is interesting. Easier to pace from the DM side of things and easier to vary the enounter difficulty based on play skill, PC power etc. .
 

Hmm, I don't know about you guys, but when I play out the official APs, I definitely have most playing time in dungeons. Yeah, there are times where the group is in town for a day. But I just don't put ANY encounters on that day, so short rest long rest balance doesn't matter in the first place. There are also times where the group needs to travel, but I certainly don't play out a travel of 2 days with 12-16 encounters. Often I just fast forward two days with a brief description of the travel. There might be one or two encounters here, but that's less for depleting their resources and more for showing them that the area is dangerous. I definitely won't try to squeeze in 6-8 encounters on overworld traveling, but don't feel like I have to either. If anything if the group reaches the next dungeon in the middle of the day, that one encounter they had in the morning already counts towards the encounter count of today's dungeon run.

And yes, as the others stated, encounters don't have to be a battle. It could also be a trap or a negotiation. After all my players would also spend resources on things other than fighting or even spend resources to avoid fighting.
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
That's a very good question... IIRC in 3e the assumption was more like 3-4 encounters per day.

I skipped 4e, but I vaguely remember that people in that era wanted more encounters per day, and maybe the AEDU system encouraged that, so perhaps this had an influence to 5e design?

Depends on your combat planning. But AEDU with little encounters/day better had some damn tough encounters or your players would daily-nova the enemies into oblivion ;)

I like 4e for its encounter powers, but daily resources are a big design problem in general when you have such big differences in encounter numbers. Especially when you have very little, but powerful daily resources.

Speaking of this yes, encounters/combat day can vary greatly whether you're in a dungeon or not. Still unless the encounters are so easy that you wouldn't have to run them at all, I don't do more than 5 a day. Usually it is about 1-2, but sometimes we spend entire sessions without combat.
 

Oofta

Legend
Die Hard is a very poor example, because A) it involved strictly 'realistic' combats, B) John solved like half of the problems in the movie without resorting to combat C) aside from bullets, his feet, and exhaustion John McClane didn't really have any 'resources' and D) Most importantly, John McClane was by himself.

You want to use something like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or Justice League or The Avengers or even Conan the Barbarian instead. Those are more representative of the situations D&D characters get into instead of a single-hero action movie.

D&D combats are realistic? PCs never resolve conflicts without combat? There are no classes that have no replenishing resources other than HP? The problem is that "it's a movie centered around a lone hero"?

There are many, many action/adventure/sci-fi/horror movies that push the hero (or heroes) to their limits over a short period of time with no real chance to get a long rest. Does it fall into the 6-8 encounters of the D&D guidelines? Of course not. You can only have so many fights in 90-120 minutes before it becomes boring, especially if you have a larger cast. For example in the Hobbit movie, when did they have a chance for a long rest? They went from encounter to encounter with a couple of short (overnight) rests. And that took 3 longer than average movies.

Novels, such as The Dresden Files have more time to set up multiple encounters. Even the LOTR books (which are not really "adventure" books, they're "journey" books) spanned months and they only had a few "long rests". Most of the time they were beaten down, exhausted and trying to get to the next destination while not being killed by orcs or goblins.
 

smbakeresq

Explorer
The goal of the 6-8 encounters is to exhaust the PCs' available resources. This includes HD from Short Rests & associated Short Rest recuperations that are 1-per-Long-Rest as well as those that recuperate from a Long Rest. So there's 2 or so Short Rests baked into this assumption. One way to deal with this is fewer but more challenging encounters where appropriate. Encounters don't need to be fights, either - they can be traps, puzzles, use of spells to bypass barriers, etc.

I'm running a Tier 3 AL mod soon and I'm looking over the encounters. The first one is a stand-alone during travel that can be immediately followed by a Long Rest. This means the players won't need to pull any punches and so I'm increasing the difficulty of the attackers enough to challenge a group of the recommended APL but maintaining the theme and purpose of the encounter itself.

Later there's a major encounter prior to the approach to the finale. Some parties would be tempted to do a Long Rest after this fight but I've annotated the encounter villain's monologue to include information that lets the players know that time is of the essence. They can rest but it will have major repercussions (a ritual is further along in casting than if they go straight on or take a Short Rest).

I know, lots of you don't want to have to do that work on a published product, it should auto-adjust or something else unattainable. Or you want to create a 'sandbox' where you shouldn't have to do this kind of balancing because it's not 'fair'.

The truth is, if you want to run a fun game with memorable challenges, it's on you as a DM to use your judgement, skill and imagination to make it so.

I agree with this, if you push your players then many builds that are considered OP stop being so. If your players always have full resources most encounters are not going to be too difficult. For years the “standard” if there was one was when your spellcasters ran out of spells, this isn’t as much of an issue any more.

Now that might involve stopping in the middle of the dungeon IRT, without a rest, and then picking up where you left off when the group gets back together. Time wise, 2 traps/obstacles and 2 combat encounters and then a short rest is usually 3-4 hours of time. I just take a picture of the PC sheet at that time so they can remember their HP, consumed resources etc.

I am of the general belief that your PC should have to make the choice to 1. spend resources now to end encounters quicker to save more resources for later or 2. Take a chance to not spend resources now to have more resources for the BBEG later.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
 

ART!

Deluxe Unhuman
I literally have no idea how many encounters my players have per day, nor do I plan that out or keep track of it. That sounds like actual work! ;)
 

5ekyu

Hero
"It's a fine line between challenging the players and forcing them to run through a DM's maze😊" Yes and sort of... To me the key as others noted is diversity... Sometime three heavies, sometimes no heavies but lots of lessers. Sometimes forced pacing, sometimes not. Sometimes the heavy is the first fight but you still need to push on thru weaker ones to get to the goal leading to very tired and "worried" PCs going more cautiously. Sometimes the major storms prevent short rests in the field. Etc etc etc. To me the real answer is almost always "there is no single answer" and keeping it. Diverse avoids many of the perceived problems from moving from challenge to problem.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
3E was 4 encounters IIRC.
That's my recollection, though it wasn't as explicit a guideline as in 5e.

I would say that this raises a slightly different issue. Is it a sign of things going well, or things going badly, that the players renew their resources (by way of resting) with renewable resources unspent (ie unused spell slots, or rages, etc)?
It depends on your PoV. If you're a DM who's trying to balance traditional class designs using a living world paradigm, it's a good sign, it shows that you're keeping the Tier 1 classes guessing about what they'll need at the start of the day, and so diminishing their dominance in play, even when you're not providing intense time pressure or a frenetic series of high-stakes challenges. Well done.

If you're trying to provide a sense of challenges barely overcome by heroes tested to the utmost, not so much, rather you may even be getting a 'too easy' vibe with resources left on the table at the end of the 'day' indicating the 'heroes' were just phoning it in at least some of the time.

If you're a player interested in 'efficiency' it can be a mixed bag, it depends on what resources are left over and which tapped out. Are you resting because the party's out of healing & low on hps, but the party mage has a bunch of spells left? He could be using them more efficiently.

Speaking purely for myself, I don't like an approach to intra-party balance of mechanical effectiveness that relies upon some players not using all their resources due to uncertainty about the challenge environment. I tend to find it makes for frustration.
Frustration on some days that theoretically balances dominance on other days (when everyone else gets to be why-did-we-even-show-up frustrated).

daily resources are a big design problem in general when you have such big differences in encounter numbers. Especially when you have very little, but powerful daily resources.
Let alone many & powerful. ;) Daily uses and long-rest recharges are potentially problematic, yes. Balancing them with at-will or faster-recharging powers is virtually impossible, if you're to leave the game open to varied pacing and many styles. There may be a balance point if it's more regimented or if they're so few (1/day for instance) that it's very rare the decision to use them isn't difficult....
 

OB1

Jedi Master
I would say that this raises a slightly different issue. Is it a sign of things going well, or things going badly, that the players renew their resources (by way of resting) with renewable resources unspent (ie unused spell slots, or rages, etc)?

Speaking purely for myself, I don't like an approach to intra-party balance of mechanical effectiveness that relies upon some players not using all their resources due to uncertainty about the challenge environment. I tend to find it makes for frustration.

For the group that I play with, it is absolutely a sign of things going well that we have renewable resources unspent when we rest.

This question really illuminated for me why there is so much disagreement over 5e encounter days. It's a fundamental question of preference in how people play.

Because 5e aligns with how my group plays, I was having difficulty seeing what the issue was for others. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I now understand that it isn't following the guidelines in the DMG.
 

Remove ads

Top