Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[Slit518]

I think 6 encounters a day works with classes that have features that benefit from Short Rests.

Start of adventuring day -
2 encounters
Short Rest 1
2 encounters
Short Rest 2
2 encounters
Long Rest

Which classes benefit the most from a Short Rest?

Bard, Fighter, Monk, Sorcerer, Warlock

Classes that have a large array of spells that they could learn to use sparingly once they reach 5th level.

Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

I would say if you're going to do 6 encounters in a day, try this formula -
2 soft encounters
3 moderate encounters
1 hard encounter

A soft encounter will be easy, likely not suck up many resources, be a 1 to 2 CR below the party.

A moderate encounter will be easier if the party uses up resources. It will probably be like a soft encounter, but only if you use your resources.

A hard encounter will put the party in danger for a few reasons. 1, resources might be low at this point, spells, abilities, etc... used up. Characters might already be somewhat injured. The characters will really need to put their all into this encounter to overcome it, using whatever resources they have left.

Now, you can try to mix up the soft, moderate, and hard encounters how you see fit. But putting a hard encounter as the first encounter might make the rest of the day a tedious day.

 

[ad_hoc]

Most people over think this.

It's pretty simple. The story either pushes the action forward or it is a boring story.

Just think in terms of action movies. There needs to be rising tension. A story where the characters have complete control should just be handled off screen.

Extra rules aren't needed because no amount of rules will make a good story. Extra rules will just push the game further into a tactical combat game rather than a story driven one which is what 5e is designed for.

 

[Zardnaar]

My quick, not-very-thought-out response.

Any "solution to build ... rules benefits that accumulate only at the 3rd + encounter" is additional bookkeeping. As simple as it might seem, it won't happen. Human psychology is very poor with juggling longterm vs. immediate gratification.

The real solution may be to admit how people like to play. If players consistently take long rests after 1-w encounters, then perhaps this is the baseline. This is how people play, how people want to play, and this is how the game should be balanced.

6th edition should/will assume only 2 encounters per day, and balance uses/spells/points accordingly.

This I think maybe 3 or 4 encounters is probably the better idea to design around.

If you are only playing 2-4 hours a day its hard to get in 6-8 encounters and its a pain to split the adventuring day over a week+ of real time.

 

[ccs]

Right now our ToA campaign is running RAW concerning short/long rests.
This is because all of the players save 1 vet are new to gaming within the past 1-12 months. Even the veteran is completely new to 5e.
We decided everyone needed to know what the base-line was before any changes get made.
So far it's working mostly OK. One of the players is a bit stuck on the mechanics side & is constantly trying to squeeze in as many short/long rests as he can.

In the next campaign though I fully intend to make a few changes.
*Long rest abilities will recharge at a specific time of day - dawn.
*The length of time your long rest requires will be modified by your Con. Unless you're an Elf. In wich case it'll be a flat 4 hrs as you trance.
*Healing will be slowed down. I just haven't decided by how much yet.
I don't want it dirt slow like in 1e, but after having run 4 campaigns I find the 5e default not really to my liking as a DM.
*I'm kicking around a few ideas for short rests.
?: The # of short rests you get is = to your Prof Bonus & are tied to specific times of day. Or maybe just x hours have to pass in-between.? The idea being the more experienced you are, the faster your short rest abilities recharge.
(Advantage: Short Rests are easily predictable on my end for planning. Downside: I have to track times of day/hours)
?: Maybe tying your short rests to your HD? You get 1 Short Rest for free. Each additional "rest" costs 1HD (cumulative). You can heal OR recharge, not both at once. (Downside: Slightly less predictable as far as planning goes, BUT.... Advantage: I don't need to do anything save collect the appropriate # of HD tokens* from the players. How fast they burn through them is their own business.)
*HD Tokens - No matter what I do with L/S Rests & Healing, I'm going to issue each player poker chips to track their HD usage. Several of the new players seem to be struggling with keeping track of this resource. A physical prop that depletes as used will help them. You use a HD, you hand me the token(s). I hand them back when the next dawn arrives.
Maybe I'll even make the HD tokens look like various CP/SP/GP/PP from the campaign.

 

[Henry]

This whole 'problem' baffles me.

The PCs are traveling and come across a town... in the process of being attacked by gnolls. They race to the town to help, stopping a bunch of gnolls attacking the butcher, then sprinting off to aid at a tavern down the way. After those gnolls are dispatched they spot where the main host of the gnolls are gathering at the edge of town to drag away captives. They manage to stop several groups of gnolls ina lengthy battle, but others escape with live captives. They pause to assess damage, heal, and speak to the mayor, but after a short rest they go into pursuit and track the gnolls back to their lair. They take out the outer guards, then face off againsta gnoll shaman that is conducting a foul ritual, then finally fight their way to where prisoners are kept. They hold off gne gnolls long enoug for the townsfolk to escape and then retreat back to town to recover before returning to finish off the gnolls...

Where the @#$% were the PCs supposed to take a long rest in tht series of 6 to 8 encounters? If they did, the townsfolk would be lost.

Tell a good story and you'll have few single combat days.

Here’s the problem as I see it - how many hours of real time does this series of encounters take? My group meets for about three hours per session. The described actions would take at least two sessions to resolve, including time for role play. I really can’t plausibly see every single session where the PCs must have a breakneck series of challenges as if it were a season of the TV show 24. The situation described should be an exception rather than a rule in my opinion, otherwise it strains credulity.

By the way, the Gnoll scenario is an almost perfect recounting of a scenario from Critical Role, and even then it took them two sessions of four hours each to complete the actions you described.

 

[jgsugden]

Here’s the problem as I see it - how many hours of real time does this series of encounters take?

As you note, 6 to 8.

My group meets for about three hours per session. The described actions would take at least two sessions to resolve, including time for role play. I really can’t plausibly see every single session where the PCs must have a breakneck series of challenges as if it were a season of the TV show 24. The situation described should be an exception rather than a rule in my opinion, otherwise it strains credulity.

Going a few sessions before a long rest is not a problem. One of my games is also a 3 hour a week deal. We often go a few sessions before finding time for a long rest.

As for the '24esque' nature of this scenarion: Most published modules feature encounters in close proximity. There may not be a clicking clock driving these encounters, but there are a lot of encounters where fighting in Room A results in fighters from Room B attacking as the first combat wraps up. There are hundreds of ways to tell great stories that wrap encounters into each other... most of the time ... although there is nothing wrong with a few nova encounters where you can go hog wild.

By the way, the Gnoll scenario is an almost perfect recounting of a scenario from Critical Role, and even then it took them two sessions of four hours each to complete the actions you described.

Geeesh... Spoiler tags.

Regardless, their sessions were fun. All the players had a good time. It is a good example of how this can -and for many of us does - work on a regular basis.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But from a character perspective, there's no reason to test your limits and risk your life if you know you could just pick up tomorrow after you're fully rested. At least not for many people.

Hypothetically, imagine a rule in the book where the first four encounters in a day were only worth a quarter of their listed XP, and all encounters after the first four were worth double the listed XP. On average, if you had seven encounters in a day, then you'd get XP equivalent to the listed XP for seven encounters; if you called out before that point, then you'd get much less, and if you went longer then you'd get much more.

If the game world actually worked that way, then people living in that world would notice. They would observe that the cautious adventurer, who gives up as soon as things start getting tough, would not advance as quickly as one who kept going as far as they could on a daily basis. Given that the latter would advance at about seven times the rate of the former, anyone could ask them how they did it, and observe that data.

In our real world, skill and experience aren't quite as important as they are in the game world. They're still important, but it's balanced by the slow accumulation of injuries (which never heal quite perfectly) that eventually force people to retire. There are games which attempt to model that reality - GURPS and Traveller both come to mind.

D&D doesn't work that way. The rules aren't trying to model a reality where people break down and become more decrepit over time. The rules are trying to model a reality where cool heroes get into 6-8 battles-to-the-death every day without it being a big deal. That's the intended design goal. But the rules fail to meet that goal, because they don't give the characters a reason to have so many battles in a day, while they do give the characters a reason to call it a day after just one or two battles.

Given that XP and levels already don't work realistically (giving too significant of a benefit, relative to physical deterioration), adding in the hypothetical rule I mentioned above would not make the world any less realistic, but it would encourage the behavior that we're looking for. (Rather, it does make the world less realistic, but it does so in specifically the way we want it to be unrealistic.) If we just say that this is a world where achieving superhuman competence at arms requires pushing yourself to your limit, then everything is fine and internally consistent, without any need to meta-game.

 

[5ekyu]

Matt Colville posted on YouTube that he is working on house rules to help get past the "5 minute adventuring day" and to address what seems to be a fairly common occurrence being that games tend to have only one or two encounters before a long rest. I'd link but I don't know how.

His solution is to build in to his house rules benefits that accumulate only at the 3rd + encounter, a bit like how in 4e at every 2nd encounter characters would get an action point to spend which encouraged them to push on.

I am attracted to some of the reasoning - in that I like the idea of characters being incentivised to push on during the adventuring day - but I also like the idea of the adventuring day being about resource management and fights getting tougher as you go on because you have used up resources (not easier because your saved resources became empowered). I worry that if the players can hoard resources to get past the first few battles the next few will become easy such that the final boss fight of the day ends up easier than the first fight. Also I don't want to just address this last issue by giving the boss extra abilities otherwise it's just combat ability inflation.

I think I like the idea of granting benefits for pushing on but maybe more narrative/generic less gamist? like
- anytime after completing 3 encounters you are able to take a single short rest taking 1 minute;
- due to your rapid progress catching the enemy slightly off guard all rolls in the first round of initiative in the 5th encounter (including initiative) are at advantage

Id be interested in how others incentivise pushing on and what people think of Colville's idea

When i was looking at porting over momentum into 5e, i had short rests and long rests cost momrntum, so you lose some or all of your pool of plot armor points

While we did not adopt that rule for other reasons, the idea is sound.

However, to me the long rest short rest "problem" (taking too many too often) is one mostly handled by situation and reactions.

If your situation is one with reacting enemies, a lot can change in 8 hours or even 1.
A GM should have in the scenario and story clear trade offs (even if characters not aware) for the withdrawls that seem obvious and reasonable when they happen.

If the situation is one where the "rest and repeat" makes sense, let it happen abd understand they will be high output when you design adventure.

 

[CapnZapp]

The real solution may be to admit how people like to play. If players consistently take long rests after 1-w encounters, then perhaps this is the baseline. This is how people play, how people want to play, and this is how the game should be balanced.

This.

An Unearthed Arcana article offering an overhaul of all PHB classes to rebalance them for half as many encounters per day as previously assumed would be greatly appreciated.

Alternatively, change short rests to 5 minutes.

 

[5ekyu]

This is one possible solution of many. Personally I don't like encouraging behavior based on meta-game rewards like XP. It leads to weird dissonance of PCs that push on for no in-world reason. Blech.

Instead I just use the alternate rules where a short rest is overnight and a long rest is several days to a week or more. Other options are not allowing long rests in dangerous areas, etc.

I agree that player side incentives with no real world analog is not something we enjoy using. Decisions should as much as possible be "in character" and "in world" based.