Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[shadowoflameth]

I've not seen in game problems from varying the number of encounters as some DMs here seem to have seen. If you're finding that less than 6 encounters is a problem then purely from a practical standpoint, you have a couple of options that can still be fun. 1. have fewer but harder encounters, or 2. have 'non-encounters' that take less real time to play out but still involve risk to the characters. Traps, getting the harbormaster to reveal the location of Dragonbone Island, or performing a ritual to obtain a needed clue are all examples. In my game, short rest is 'The fight is over, let's catch our breath. We still need to make it up there to rescue the prisoners.' Long rest is 'the battle of Helm's Deep is over, time for a feast and sleep before we go on to Eisengarde.

 

[Lylandra]

A game can't be everything for everyone.

I think 5e is very inclusive of different types of peoples. Saying it isn't inclusive because it isn't every game is rather ridiculous.



If you don't have a problem with the game why do you have a problem with the game?



Maybe it is popular because it is a focused game and people want that game.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it needs to cater to even more people. If anything, the opposite is true.

Why do you feel like you must play 5e? Because it is popular?



It's wonderful that there are other games out there.

Dungeons and Dragons has Dungeons and Dragons in it. That's what it is about. And a lot of people love it for that. It's entirely okay if you don't, but it isn't the designers' fault that they didn't make a game that caters to you.

You don't get what I meant, do you? With my reply I directly commented on your dismissive tone towards me, who was simply making a constructive suggestion based upon my perception of other threads (and replies in *this very same thread*) regarding groups and their playstyle.

Take a look at this response:

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.

Funny how no one came to *him* to say that *he* was playing the wrong game...

And again, I don't have a *problem* with 5e. I just think it might be an even better system with more optional rules, catering to different styles of play. Like, for example, 3.5 with its UA rules for "no magic items" or really low-magic settings despite the fact that magic items and magic are some of the backbones of D&D.

 

[Satyrn]

But I guess I just hopped onto the wrong thread and will leave asap. I don't feel welcome here.

I hope you just mean this thread, not the forum. I have found your posts interesting.

 

[Lylandra]

I hope you just mean this thread, not the forum. I have found your posts interesting.

sure, I love this forum

Edit: And thanks

 

[ad_hoc]

You don't get what I meant, do you? With my reply I directly commented on your dismissive tone towards me, who was simply making a constructive suggestion based upon my perception of other threads (and replies in *this very same thread*) regarding groups and their playstyle.

Take a look at this response:

You called me bitter and I intentionally ignored it because it is a thing to say to someone.

Funny how no one came to *him* to say that *he* was playing the wrong game...

Wait, are you saying I am treating you unfairly because I don't reply to every post on this forum?

And again, I don't have a *problem* with 5e. I just think it might be an even better system with more optional rules, catering to different styles of play. Like, for example, 3.5 with its UA rules for "no magic items" or really low-magic settings despite the fact that magic items and magic are some of the backbones of D&D.

Yeah, you're saying that 5e doesn't cater to your style of play. That is having a problem with it.

You are playing Dungeons and Dragons without Dungeons - of course the rules aren't going to work well for you.

3.5 was a hot mess, but guess what, you can still play it. There is nothing stopping you from continuing to play that game as you feel it is better suited to you. I would say there are many other games that are much more suited to you than any D&D game.

I don't know why you only want to play the most popular game. There is a reason why it is so popular. Personally I'm glad that WotC isn't wasting time and effort on trying to make D&D a RPG for all styles of play.

 

[OB1]

I envy you. I have tried to get my players to do this, but they are old grognards and wargamers (as am I, BTW) and they like to tactic every move out. This makes even 5e encounters drag a bit (nothing like 3e...oh my God!). I find it difficult to believe people cannot pre-plan their actions ahead of time and then deviate from that plan if necessary, but my players act as if the world is entirely created at the start of each of their turns. Kinda exasperating.

If I may be so bold as to make a couple suggestions that may or may not help but that you can do by DM fiat. Because while you can’t force others to speed up their play, you can create an environment that encourages it.

1. Always tell the next player up in initiative they are on deck. It won’t work for all players, but for the ones it does it can really help make sure they start their turn ready to go and help speed up the round.

2. Always run easy and medium encounters in ToM. Rule in favor of the players on anything close.

3. For Hard and Deadly fights on a grid, rule that any creature engaged with another creature effected by an AOE spell is also effected. (Keeps those endless counting of squares to figure out the best place to put that fireball from happening). If asked why, explain that being engaged means you are partially in each other’s space.

Try these and don’t actually ask anyone to speed up. Start throwing lots of easy encounters at the party, making them fun ways to show off how bad-ass they are. Reassure them that for more difficult encounters the grid will still come out. If it’s going well, start moving Hard encounters to ToM as well, and then single monster deadly fights.

 

[robus]

3. For Hard and Deadly fights on a grid, rule that any creature engaged with another creature effected by an AOE spell is also effected. (Keeps those endless counting of squares to figure out the best place to put that fireball from happening). If asked why, explain that being engaged means you are partially in each other’s space.

If the result is uncertain I like to have the caster roll an ability check (INT for wizards, naturally) and set the DC appropriately the situation warrants (plenty of time DC 10 - desperate effort DC 20, most of the time DC 15). Mindless spells are very dull.

 

[Oofta]

you sound like a very bitter and/or determined 5th edition warrior if you try to tell anyone not playing 6 enounters/day that they are playing the wrong game. Very inclusive, indeed.

But I guess I just hopped onto the wrong thread and will leave asap. I don't feel welcome here.

PS: I never said we encountered problems or didn't adjust our game. I just wished there were official options to deal with different playstyles, like "no feats" or the like. It would be fitting for the world's most popular PnP system and also acknowledging the fact that times have changed since "dungeon crawls or GTFO".

All feats are optional and there are some optional rules in the DMG for changing the flavor of the game. For example I use the optional rule that a short rest is overnight and a long rest is several days, up to a week or more. It helps get in the number of encounters I want, but mostly it's just a question of pacing and the types of stories I want to tell. I usually want to do something similar to The Dresden Files or similar novels where everything is normal and then it goes to heck in a handbasket for a few days.

Not sure if that's the kind of thing you're asking about, I will agree that there's a pretty vast difference in power level between classes if people know they can go nova. I don't think it's really a problem ... sometimes I have 2-3 encounters, sometimes I have 10. It depends on what the story calls for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One thing I did, and it didn't have a massive impact in the current game due to me not introducing it until very late, was to change long rests so that instead of automatically healing they had to spend hit dice.

It doesn't do much for the casters with their long rest spell regeneration, but I feel like it does make a short rest more appealing if the healing element is the exact same, because while I occasionally heard "I'm low on spells" as a reasoning, I much more often heard "We are injured, let's take a long rest" to the point where I had to fight one time to get the cleric to use Preserve Life and us simply short rest to spend our hit dice (we were full on HD) instead of long resting to heal our wounds.

We went into the next fight with nearly full hp and plenty of spells, and no long rest.



Also, thinking on my gaming experience, I rarely have problems with the "main questline" battles. It is the encounters I feel like should happen while traveling that give me headaches. The fights are meaningless, usually unconnected from the plot, and the players have potentially days or weeks to heal up. So, I either run multiple combats for every day they are traveling (my gods no, it would make it unbearable to try and get anywhere), accept a single encounter to waste everyone's time, or generally just skip them because there is no point to them anyways.

Still, I just think this is going to be something DMs are going to have to come to grips with and find solutions for. I liked some of the ideas Colville was proposing in the video. I just felt like A) they were too powerful [vulnerability to smite damage, holy crap on a stick] and B) They felt too arbitrary. I feel like I'd want a reason why they have these abilities that unlock in this manner. So, maybe I would use these rules in a special dungeon, where it is part of the dungeons nature to empower people who fight through it longer, but I don't think I would use the rules constantly.

 

[robus]

Not sure if that's the kind of thing you're asking about, I will agree that there's a pretty vast difference in power level between classes if people know they can go nova. I don't think it's really a problem ... sometimes I have 2-3 encounters, sometimes I have 10. It depends on what the story calls for.

Keeping things unpredictable is key which is why the default travel rules are so poor. 0 or 1 encounter is entirely too predictable