D&D 5E Damn paladins, you scary!

[Flamestrike]

I've been reading, posting and thinking a lot about this "not enough encounter per day so they go Nova" problem. A significant number of gaming group (30%? 50? 70%? I don't know, but it's not 1%...) don't like the notion of 6-8 encounters per day being the norm. I know I don't.

But I think some of the answers I got were pretty helpful. I think the best thing to do is not have the number of encounters be *predictable*. If your party knows that you usually only have 3 encounters per day *but not always*, on that third encounter they will hold back at least somewhat, keep a few aces in the hole so to speak, just in case this happens to be one of those "extra encounters" days.

Just make sure you throw longer days at them with some regularity. If its only ever 2-3 encounters, then they'll ration accordingly. If longer adventuring days come up with some level of frequency, then they'll be proportionally much more cautious.

This shouldnt be hard in any dungeon type environment where 6-8 is the norm.

Who has 2-3 encounters in a dungeon, then falls back to sleep the night anyway?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Who has 2-3 encounters in a dungeon, then falls back to sleep the night anyway?

I've seen players try to do that, but only when conditioned to do so by an adversarial DM that runs every encounter at the bleeding edge of possible to defeat, so the party is actually at the point of "if we push on, we die" before trying to take that rest.

 

[Flamestrike]

I've seen players try to do that, but only when conditioned to do so by an adversarial DM that runs every encounter at the bleeding edge of possible to defeat, so the party is actually at the point of "if we push on, we die" before trying to take that rest.

Rookie mistake in 5E.

I've seen it so many times. It goes like this: DM creates encounter. Players nova. DM (or players) then log onto forum to complain that encounters are too 'weak' in 5E. To compensate, the the DM increases the difficulty of the encounters from this point... forcing the PCs to continue to use nova tactics (and encouraging the very problem he's trying to stop). The DM (or players) then log back onto a forum and complain that certain classes (Paladins, full casters) are OP, and that Champion Fighters and Warlocks suck.

If you want to stop your players using nova tactics, use more encounters, not harder ones. Its the DMs job to police the 5 minute AD, not the players.

 

[Kusodareka]

Rookie mistake in 5E.

I've seen it so many times. It goes like this: DM creates encounter. Players nova. DM (or players) then log onto forum to complain that encounters are too 'weak' in 5E. To compensate, the the DM increases the difficulty of the encounters from this point... forcing the PCs to continue to use nova tactics (and encouraging the very problem he's trying to stop). The DM (or players) then log back onto a forum and complain that certain classes (Paladins, full casters) are OP, and that Champion Fighters and Warlocks suck.

If you want to stop your players using nova tactics, use more encounters, not harder ones. Its the DMs job to police the 5 minute AD, not the players.

5 minutes AD? What is that?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

5 minutes AD? What is that?

It's the five minute adventuring day, also called the five minute work day.

A phenomenon in which characters do all of about five minutes of adventuring (i.e. head into dungeon, battle one or two groups of monsters) and then retreat and do non-adventuring activities until able to complete a long rest, usually because they have experienced no reason not to follow this procedure of blowing all their daily resources as fast as possible until out and then resting up.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's the five minute adventuring day, also called the five minute work day.

A phenomenon in which characters do all of about five minutes of adventuring (i.e. head into dungeon, battle one or two groups of monsters) and then retreat and do non-adventuring activities until able to complete a long rest, usually because they have experienced no reason not to follow this procedure of blowing all their daily resources as fast as possible until out and then resting up.

Exactly.

To be fair to a lot of DM's, earlier DMGs were quiet on the topic, so you kind of had to figure out how to police the phenomenon on your own. The natural kneejerk reaction to PCs smashing encounters for a DM is to ratchet up the difficulty of encounters. We've all done it.

At least the 5E DMG discusses the topic, and gives some advice for how to deal with it (more encounters, time constraints on adventures, expected AD XP, the 6-8 expectation for long rest recovery, the assumption of 2 short rests per long rest etc).

It arguably doesnt go far enough though (you still hear the same complaints in 5E).

DnD is (at its heart) a resource management game. Once you accept that fact, you can design your encounters appropriately.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

DnD is (at its heart) a resource management game. Once you accept that fact, you can design your encounters appropriately.

Or go mad with power and redesign the rate at which resources come back to the players. AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME!

 

[Flamestrike]

Or go mad with power and redesign the rate at which resources come back to the players. AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME!

It was an intresting design choice to go with a mix of short rest v long rest recovery resources, with not all classes being dependant on the same recovery mechanic to the same degree.

It does have the advantage of making the classes feel less 'samey' like with 4E, and gives a skilled DM the chance to play with the rest frequency and allow different classes the chance to shine at different times (simply by tweaking the rest rate).

On the down side, it can be a diffiult skill to master, and adds an extra level of complexity onto encounter design.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't really like the paladin smite mechanic, and would propose following solutions if it becomes a problem at your table.

- either 1d10 per slot would suffice when you may apply it after you know you hit.
- or as it is but announce it beforehand
- or limit it to once per turn as sneak attack. You have your bonus action smite spells.

On the other hand the monk stunning fist is equally powerful.

I generally would change nothing if the players don't abuse and whine and generally give the same advise. Have random or less random encounters when players nova all the time and retreat and don't make the game so hard they must rereat.

 

[Ancalagon]

Exactly.

To be fair to a lot of DM's, earlier DMGs were quiet on the topic, so you kind of had to figure out how to police the phenomenon on your own. The natural kneejerk reaction to PCs smashing encounters for a DM is to ratchet up the difficulty of encounters. We've all done it.

At least the 5E DMG discusses the topic, and gives some advice for how to deal with it (more encounters, time constraints on adventures, expected AD XP, the 6-8 expectation for long rest recovery, the assumption of 2 short rests per long rest etc).

This is true. Even in older editions the going nova was available to casters - casting their most powerful spells - while fighters and rogues were more consistent. You could get a "go nova, run out of the dungeon" cycle. Now the problem is apparent and laid on the table... so maybe it's not "worse", we just didn't fully realize the nature of the problem.

That being said, the going nova is fun! If the players feel like they have to be misers and use their powers (spells, rage etc) in very sparse amount, they are going to feel frustrated...