6-8 Encounters a long rest is, actually, a pretty problematic idea.

6-8 medium encounters or 3 ish hard encounters or 1 or 2 deadly ones. DMs have the control.

My advice for all DMs when I see a thread like this is to make sure that encounter occurrence and difficulty level is unpredictable. If players don't know what's coming, they will not go "nova", they will not try to optimize for a specific number or kind of encounter, they will not try to predict, etc. They'll play and interact with the environment in a more natural less contrived, gamey way.

With variety, sometimes Warlocks and others that rely on short rest mechanics will feel favored and challenged. So will the other classes that rely on full rest mechanics.

Run less encounters that are of higher difficulty.

Azzy said:

Run less encounters that are of higher difficulty.

Click to expand...

Wait, do you mean run a small number of encounters, most of which are high difficulty, or do you mean continue to run 6-8 encounters but run fewer high difficulty ones?

I tried the former with my overpowered group and it only exacerbated the problem. More difficult encounters meant the players tried to find more rest opportunities and the 15 minute workday became a 5 minute workday. When I switched to the latter I found the group did more role-play because not every encounter was a death-match and they tried to find opportunities to conserve their best powers.

Both are valid approaches. If you want a more combat oriented game, go with 2-4 higher difficulty encounters. If you want a more role-play focused game, go with 6-8 easier encounters. I find mixing it up within the same group can be fun too.

hawkeyefan said:

Many of them do, absolutely. I don’t think it is a constant state of affairs, but each if the published modules I’m familiar with does this at times. Usually the high number of encounters are connected to an adventure site like a dungeon or a haunted keep or something like that.

In one of the past versions of this conversation, I broke down a few different modules where this happened.

I think a big part of what will make the modules work as presented or not is how the DM handles long rests and their availability. Personally, I have no problem denying a Long Rest outside of a safe environment. I also have no problem coming up with reasons for the PCs to press on.

I think other DMs allow the players to dictate when a Long Rest happens, and then they keep the world static until the PCs resume. To me, this runs counter to the game design’s expectations. I don’t think it should be up to the players when the characters can rest, and I think that if they do choose to rest, the DM should factor in possible ramifications of that decision.

Click to expand...

I think this is the big one.

Generally if you you wait too long (and each rest cycle eats 24 hours) SOMETHING will fill any void that is created. New monsters may move into the now partially empty real estate, other fortune hunters will take advantage of the easier opening, something might stumble upon or be hunting a resting group of humanoids.

There is a lot that can happen away from town (or even in town) in 24 hours. It might be valuable to make people realize that if they take too long to finish their business.

I absolutely am NOT trying to Edition War here, but I note that the OP mentioned only D&D experience from 3e onwards. That strikes me as important to this question, because there are assumptions within the ruleset beyond the rules themselves, as well as matters of zeitgeist that inform how different game systems are played. I’ve noticed that, because 5e is a remix of sorts of the assumptions of multiple versions of the game, those who were introduced to the brand with different rule sets think of underlying assumptions very differently.

As someone who started in 1st Edition and still laughs at how I played 3e by 2nd Edition assumptions well into 3.5, I wouldn’t imagine having fewer than a dozen encounters per day — how else could a dungeon level be plausibly clearedor the area around a campsite be plausible secured? The issue about standard attacks strikes me that attacks have (in the text) been standardized in categories and thus treated accordingly.

You don’t need to firebolt every turn or encounter any more than you need to swing your sword. That same action can be used to pull a bookcase down on a group of goblins or to set fire with your torch to the rug that the skeletons are standing upon. The action economy and action taxonomy are toolsets for the DM to use to fit players’ ideas into a sequence that can be rolled for or against, it’s not meant as a straight jacket of specifically limited options of programmed algorithms.

The attribute check on down is designed in 5e to offered a free reign of player options to interact with the environment (consider how some classes even are built to benefit with this, as is the very Advantage/Disadvantage system). Outside of a white box battlefield, one is never limited to spam the “I stab him with my sword” “I shoot a fire bolt” virtual button (and it’s part of the DM’s job to teach this if the players aren’t fully understanding their total freedom).

Jonathon Robinson said:

I. I can't find anything in the DMG that recommends it in 5E the way it is recommend for 4E. So if the players want to take a long rest after 2 encounters: sure, why not. .

Click to expand...

The encounter design guidelines call out 6-8 encounters & 2-3 short rests, and a daily exp budget in the 5e DMG.
The DMG for 4e was not specific about the number of encounters per day, though it does go into the number it'd typically take to level, and advised a mix of types & difficulties, the exp budget was just for an encounter.

The reason for the 6-8 encounter norm in 5e is also quite different. In 4e the pacing might have varied with the story and with how well or badly the PCs were doing, those variations would affect how challenging a given encounter was likely be, but they wouldn't much have shifted the balance or drama among the members of the party. When combats were tough, any PC might have thrown down a daily to help turn it in the party's favor, when they weren't, dailies, because there were very few of them per character, were more likely to be conserved. There was a little nuance to managing surges, as well, but, again, everyone had 'em.
In 5e, different characters can have very different resource mixes to manage. Some have few resources at all, that recharge with a short rest, others more, most classes more & more significant daily resources. When you vary pacing & difficulties in 5e, you directly impact how PCs perform relative to each other as well as to the challenges they face. Either sticking to the 6-8 guideline, or varying around it in a carefully tailored way, allows the DM to manage those imbalances to put each PC in the spotlight for a fair share of the fun.

Not everyone plays that way, and if a DM consistently runs a certain way, players who adapt to it - class choice, strategies, etc - or who were just lucky enough to choose a class that ends up favored, will tend to dominate play. For instance, if you regularly blow your daily exp budget on two or three very tough fights, a barbarian with 3 rages/day will be able to rage in every fight. If you tend to have short rests after most fights, and longer days, the Warlock may be casting far more spells per day than the wizard. That kind of thing.

AmerginLiath said:

The attribute check on down is designed in 5e to offered a free reign of player options to interact with the environment... (and it’s part of the DM’s job to teach this if the players aren’t fully understanding their total freedom).

Click to expand...

5e is very much focused on DM Empowerment, and the free rein you describe is really there for the DM. Players can do what they want so long as a sufficiently unambiguous rule - combat option like attacking with a weapon on a weapon table somewhere, firebolt cantrip, or other spell, etc - saying they can do it. Beyond that, the challenge becomes to declare an action the DM will allow to work or at least call for a roll you're good at. Everyone is on equal footing as far as the most basic humanoid abilities go, but if you have any abilities beyond that, like being able to fly, turn invisible, see in the dark or whatever, then your options, both unambiguous and DM-mediated expand tremendously.

AmerginLiath said:

I absolutely am NOT trying to Edition War here, but I note that the OP mentioned only D&D experience from 3e onwards. That strikes me as important to this question, because there are assumptions within the ruleset beyond the rules themselves, as well as matters of zeitgeist that inform how different game systems are played. I’ve noticed that, because 5e is a remix of sorts of the assumptions of multiple versions of the game, those who were introduced to the brand with different rule sets think of underlying assumptions very differently.

As someone who started in 1st Edition and still laughs at how I played 3e by 2nd Edition assumptions well into 3.5, I wouldn’t imagine having fewer than a dozen encounters per day — how else could a dungeon level be plausibly clearedor the area around a campsite be plausible secured? The issue about standard attacks strikes me that attacks have (in the text) been standardized in categories and thus treated accordingly.

You don’t need to firebolt every turn or encounter any more than you need to swing your sword. That same action can be used to pull a bookcase down on a group of goblins or to set fire with your torch to the rug that the skeletons are standing upon. The action economy and action taxonomy are toolsets for the DM to use to fit players’ ideas into a sequence that can be rolled for or against, it’s not meant as a straight jacket of specifically limited options of programmed algorithms.

The attribute check on down is designed in 5e to offered a free reign of player options to interact with the environment (consider how some classes even are built to benefit with this, as is the very Advantage/Disadvantage system). Outside of a white box battlefield, one is never limited to spam the “I stab him with my sword” “I shoot a fire bolt” virtual button (and it’s part of the DM’s job to teach this if the players aren’t fully understanding their total freedom).

Click to expand...

I do think a big part of it is some old school type experience that lends itself to the "high number of encounters between rests" concepts. Often in dungeons (but not only in dungeons). There just isn't a way to safely rest unless you clear a whole bunch of areas in a relatively short period of time.

If you enter a room and unleash all your resources on that battle, it's likely something hears you nearby and comes running within a minute. No time to rest - barely time to search the bodies and check for secret doors and traps. And when you do want to rest, you need to secure a rest area or else have your rest interrupted. Securing an area means exploring more than just a room or two. You can't just find an empty room and spike the door closed - things will break your door down. Because you're murderous robbers in their house and they're not just going to sit around waiting for your tea time to end.

This is kinda how the concept of dungeon "levels" came about. You're taking it one level at a time (or at least one securable larger-section of the level at a time), not one room at a time. The walls might define an individual battlefield for a single battle, but the region (a larger series of rooms and corridors and doors and secret entrances and such) needs to be secured if you want to rest safely. Even if you are quiet about it, monsters wander constantly. It's an active region, not a video game where you pop a door and only then do the monsters automate.

And if you just plan on entering, taking out a single room, and then exiting the dungeon...expect the room to have more monsters in it next time, and for them to be more prepared. Or you can also expect they will leave the dungeon and track you down where you're campsite is at.

You can't just leave for 8 hours and expect the situation to remain static and you just return to where you left off. Where you left off is killing some monsters that knew some other monsters. They react to what you've done so far.

AmerginLiath said:

As someone who started in 1st Edition, I wouldn’t imagine having fewer than a dozen encounters per day — how else could a dungeon level be plausibly clearedor the area around a campsite be plausible secured?

Click to expand...

My experience with 1e back in the day ('80-89), was that it varied tremendously with group/DM & level. At low levels, we watched hps carefully, and withdrew to rest when out if healing spells, because if we pushed it, someone would get knocked below 0, and, if we survived, that was a week to get him up and running, again. Some levels later, the emphasis switched to spells, in general, not just healing. Spells are such a powerful and renewable resource, it'd've been foolish not to, and, as the attack v AC dynamic shifted hp damage accumulation became less unpredictable, so withdraw became about managing spell resources rather than avoiding week-long convalescence. If hps were heavily depleted, an extra day spent memorizing a full slate of healing would take care of it.

Resting in dungeons varied with the DM a lot, too, some were quite permissive, spike a door shut and you're good, with others, it was better to leave the dungeon or to rest while you still had enough juice to take on the wandering damage.

I do not recall a whole lot of resting in Rope Tricks back in the day... maybe it was just that the spell didn't click with most of the groups I games with, or maybe it was the desperate need for low level parties to rest frequently that led to DMs being sufficiently accustomed to it that the extradimensional hidey-hole was overkill...
...or maybe rope trick just didn't get found in a scroll or book that much.

Rhenny said:

My advice for all DMs when I see a thread like this is to make sure that encounter occurrence and difficulty level is unpredictable. If players don't know what's coming, they will not go "nova", they will not try to optimize for a specific number or kind of encounter, they will not try to predict, etc..

Click to expand...

The counter to this argument is that, if the party might have a hard encounter coming up and there's no way for them to predict it, then they will force a rest whenever they get to a point where they are operating at less-than-optimal capacity. It's the same reason why you can't run a party out of resources by using only super-deadly encounters. If the next fight might kill them, then they must be prepared to face it.

To contrast, if encounter difficulty is easily predictable, then players won't be reluctant to keep moving forward - as long as they're confident in their ability to win the next encounter, and still get out safely.

Rhenny said:

6-8 medium encounters or 3 ish hard encounters or 1 or 2 deadly ones. DMs have the control.

Click to expand...

No, they don't.

If the game didn't offer a dozen ways to escape having to have that final encounter of the day (by resting before you have it), then yes.

But it does, so no.