D&D 5E 6-8 encounters/day - how common is this?

[Flamestrike]

Not DMing 5E currently, but I'd note there is a natural desire to have a long rest at the end of a session because as the GM you want to have some sort of climax and aftermath at the end of the session to make sure people end on a high note and help player engagement.

But equally, ending a session with the party depleted of resources, and needing to spend the week thinking of way to achieve the quests end-goal in their current state (and looking forward to the climax with the BBEG the following week) is also a valid method of player engagement.

Like, you'll do the opening conflict to draw people in, chance for PCs to do their thing(s), some setbacks, progress and some sort of climax for the episode, and the aftermath which sets up next sessions opening conflict.

Assuming this only involves 1-3 combat encounters, then there is no reason not to simply turn the end of session long rest into the end of session short rest. In fact, thats much closer to 5E's expected pacing.

Then again, that game is also not even close to 20-30 minutes a combat (to quote the GM when I mentioned that 'AHAHAHAHAHA, wait.. really?')

Shorter AD's (which your group seems to have) result in deadlier combats. Deadlier combats take longer to resolve by default (and in campaigns where they feature, long rest classes such as full Casters will show up a lot further slowing things down). Due to the deadly nature of the combats, all turns need to be fully optimised to ridiculous degrees, all actions planned out and all spells used at the precise time or else a TPK is just around the corner.

For example a combat featuring 8 Hobgoblins and 1 Hobgoblin captain is a 'Hard' encounter for 5 x 5th level PCs (just). This should not take more than 20 minutes to resolve (and much less time if the party Wizard has a fireball spell prepped and is prepared to blow one of his 3rd level slots on the encounter).

I would personally expect this encounter to drain resources (hit points, a barbarian rage, a fireball and a shield spell, a few cure wounds, maybe a sup dice or two to take down the Captain) but there should be no real chance of a PC death unless the Hobgoblins roll particularly well (initiative and then surround a PC). The threat is there, and its enough to make the party mage consider going for his highest level spell, but its a challenge that is workable by the party.

Now throw 6-8 such encounters this at them, forcing them to stretch those fireballs, rages, divine smites and sorcery points over the duration and it becomes a very different story indeed. Using rages, spell slots and so forth becomes a meaningful choice that affects the entire strategy for the whole adventure.

The overall challenge comes not from overcoming each individual encounter, but from overcoming each individual adventuring day.

 

[Flamestrike]

A lot of this depends on the style of the campaign. I often have many (in-game) days pass between sessions. I rarely use "adventure areas" like dungeons. I prefer one or two large fights over 6-8 because that's what fits the circumstances and the ongoing story. Six combat encounters in a day? That would feel forced and artificial for a campaign that's structured (in some respects) like an epic fantasy and makes use almost exclusively of plot-related combats.

If you only get 0-2 encounters per day, and often have large periods of time between encounters why arent you using the longer rest variant?

It seems perfect for your campaign.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you only get 0-2 encounters per day, and often have large periods of time between encounters why arent you using the longer rest variant?

It seems perfect for your campaign.

I've thought about it. I'm trying to decide (among other things) if bringing it up in the middle of the campaign and trying to convince the players it's worth changing is worth it, or if I should just wait for the next campaign to introduce it.

 

[Flamestrike]

I've thought about it. I'm trying to decide (among other things) if bringing it up in the middle of the campaign and trying to convince the players it's worth changing is worth it, or if I should just wait for the next campaign to introduce it.

I dont know your players, but surely if you asked them to trial it for a while (say a month or so) they would be on board?

They'll initially feel much more limited (in that they wont be able to nova anywhere near as much). Spellcasters will rely on cantrips much more, and 'at will' classes (Warlock, Rogue, Champion) will certainly start to shine much more than they have to date. Fighters generally, along with Warlocks and Monks will also get a boost.

When spells/ rages/ divine smites do get used, they become a thing of wonder (and a real game changer) in addition to being a meaningful choice by the player.

If you sell it to them with a solid metagame explanation of it (its to better balance the classes, and open up more options to the group), they should be fine. They really need to know not to nova also (or that should they do so, they might be stuck with no 'big boom boom' effects for weeks of in game time). I would even go so far as to explain the 6-8/ 2 short rest thing, and to advise that (behind the curtain) thats the expected default pacing in the campaign. If theyre adults about it, there should be no problems.

Dont forget to tone down your encounters though in response (back to medium-hard).

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Yeah, we definitely have a couple of players of the I rolled a 3, a 5, and have static modifiers of.. what are my static modifiers again *checks sheet* OK 12.. so thats a total of *thinks* 21? No wait 20!" variety, which makes everything take 5 times as long as it needs to in combat, regardless of difficulty. One guy is playing a hand crossbow gimmick fighter I built and takes about a billion years to do his turns which fills me with regret.

But that said I don't see how it's possibly going to be 20 minutes a throw regardless of what you do, especially once you get a plethora of multiattackers. We're heading to level 15 and slow adding dude attacks 4 times. Even if he was lighting quick, it still takes AGES because the system doesn't really let you resolve attacks in batches.

To use an example, you get issues like this. Crossbow spam fighter knows the dude he is firing at has low health. When he drops him he wants to move somewhere else to do something else. So you get this, which is tedium:

*Dude rolls 1 attack.* Is the guy dead? No?

*Dude rolls 2nd attack* Oh I missed. Do I use superiority dice? Hrm, yeah, I should *hits, gets bad damage, fails to kill* OK still not dead?

*Dude rolls 3rd attack* Aha, dude is dead, so I move and make 4th attack.

*Dude rolls 4th attack*

Even if he was quick, would still take forever and this happens all the time.

Edit: The encounters are not even that hard - there has been 1 player death (my own, from a natural 1 on a death saving throw with a one on the clock at level.. 2? I think?) and we're tooling along to moderately high levels with the GM rolling his dice in the open, so it's not even that we're being ridiculously optimal with incombat tactics.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yeah, we definitely have a couple of players of the I rolled a 3, a 5, and have static modifiers of.. what are my static modifiers again *checks sheet* OK 12.. so thats a total of *thinks* 21? No wait 20!" variety, which makes everything take 5 times as long as it needs to in combat, regardless of difficulty. One guy is playing a hand crossbow gimmick fighter I built and takes about a billion years to do his turns which fills me with regret.

But that said I don't see how it's possibly going to be 20 minutes a throw regardless of what you do, especially once you get a plethora of multiattackers.

DM: Ok Bob, Its your Wizards turn; the Ogre has just dropped Charlies Fighter and the two orcs circle you menacingly, weapons drawn.
Bob: I umm.. err.. I dont know if I should cast or run over and help the Fighter
Charlie: (feebly) Heeeelp meeee..!
Bob: But I dont want to take the attacks of opportunity!
DM: Last chance...
Bob: (picks up PHB and starts flicking through spell section)
DM: Bob, too late. You take the Dodge action and your turn ends. Steve, you see Bob paralysed by indecision and flanked by two Orcs, and the Fighter has gone down, what do you do?
Steve: I move to the Ogre screaming 'Fight me you wuss!' and when its back is turned cast healing word on the Fighter. I then attack the Ogre trying to knock his teeth out with my mace (rolls) 15.
DM: You strike the Ogre a viscious blow on its snout as it turns towards you. Roll damage.
Steve: Rolls. 15 damage.
DM: The Ogre recoils from your mace, fury in its eyes and now sporting a cracked tusk. Its now the Orcs turn. Bob, they seize on your indecsion and stab at you (rolls)

etc

If your combats are lasting more than 20 minutes its your DMs fault.

We're heading to level 15 and slow adding dude attacks 4 times. Even if he was lighting quick, it still takes AGES because the system doesn't really let you resolve attacks in batches.

An attack is almost invariably roll a d20 and add two numbers together. Then roll one or more dice and add that to a fixed number.

He declares his action within 3 or 4 seconds at my table or he takes the dodge action and his turn ends. He writes his fixed damage bonuses down on his character sheet and gets his maths right ([number + number] really isnt that hard for anyone over the age of 6) or he starts to miss. A lot.

This player is either intelectually challenged (no offence) or lazy or doesnt understand his characters abilities for some reason. The last two things can be fixed by the player. Only the first thing needs to be accomodated for by the group and DM.

To use an example, you get issues like this. Crossbow spam fighter knows the dude he is firing at has low health. When he drops him he wants to move somewhere else to do something else. So you get this, which is tedium:

*Dude rolls 1 attack.* Is the guy dead? No?

*Dude rolls 2nd attack* Oh I missed. Do I use superiority dice? Hrm, yeah, I should *hits, gets bad damage, fails to kill* OK still not dead?

*Dude rolls 3rd attack* Aha, dude is dead, so I move and make 4th attack.

*Dude rolls 4th attack*

Even if he was quick, would still take forever and this happens all the time.

That should take a minute or two at most, and its a 15th level character (where combats tend to take a bit longer).

Most actions are resolved with a single D20 roll, followed sometimes by a damage roll. From 5th level, generally two such checks resolve most turns (only fighters roll more).

Wizard casts spell. Creature rolls d20 to save. Downed PC rolls single D20 to stabilise. Cleric casts heal and PC restores HP. Barbairan rages as a bonus action then makes two attacks with his axe. Rogue stabs the creature with sneak attack, then uses cunning action to disengage before moving. Creature attacks barbarian, rolling two attacks.

Some of those things might take a minute or two to resolve at most. Most should be resolved within seconds. The majority of time wasted in encounters is not the maths (roll+bonus) its in the making decisions on what to do.

Like I said above, at my table you get a few seconds to decide what to do (you should already know at the start of your turn what youre doing) then a prompt/ warning. After a few more seconds have passed of real time, your turn ends due to indecision and you take the dodge action.

Works a treat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Oh, I understand all about toning down (or up) the encounters, since I've been throwing combats at them that are truly dangerous--as in, real danger of characters dropping to 0 hp--at one fight/day. (It's about 4 x "deadly," give or take.)

And that works; I don't have any objection to ignoring the 6-8 encounter guideline in that regard. I just don't want to be going that way all the time, which is why I'm thinking about the longer rest variant.

 

[Flamestrike]

Oh, I understand all about toning down (or up) the encounters, since I've been throwing combats at them that are truly dangerous--as in, real danger of characters dropping to 0 hp--at one fight/day. (It's about 4 x "deadly," give or take.)

And that works; I don't have any objection to ignoring the 6-8 encounter guideline in that regard. I just don't want to be going that way all the time, which is why I'm thinking about the longer rest variant.

If you use the longer rest variant in your games, then a 4 x deadly encounter will wind up as a TPK. I'd wager you have only increased the difficulty up to this point in response to your players using nova tactics (i.e. they were steamrolling easier encounters).

In other words, these deadlier encoutners have only reinforced the need for nova tactics. Heck, the encounters even necessitate nova strikes to avoid TPKs.

To stop nova tactics, you use more encounters, not harder ones. Let them blow their load on encounters one and two. Then (as they crawl off to long rest) throw 4-6 more encounters at them when they're out of smites, rages, and spell slots. They'll cotton on quick and hold back after doing this to them just the once.

I would use this tactic sparingly. I prefer to let the players know from the start how much time they have to complete the quest, and they can guess a rough estimation of the number of encounters before their next long rest based around this (and from past experience). If your players expect several encounters before a long rest is taken, theyll pace themselves accordingly. Throw a death match at them and it could go south, fast.

Your players wont have the resources to deal with a 4 x deadly fight anymore. Assuming a party of 5 x 10th level PCs, they have a deadly threshold of 14,000xp. 4 x Deadly = 56,000XP

That equals:

1 x CR 23 monster (50,000) - 1 x Ancient blue dragon
3 x CR 13 monsters (60,000) - 3 x Storm giants
1 x CR 12 and 8 x CR 5s (57,000) - 1 x Archmage and 8 x elementals (two of each type)
6 x CR 9s (60,000) - 6 x Glabrezus

Any of which would absolutely wipe the floor with 5 x 10th level PCs unless those PCs were fully rested, had everything going for them (including surprise), and are prepared to nova like crazy (and even then there is a good chance of a TPK).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I 'turn my mind' to it a lot - I spend a lot of time thinking about it. And my conclusion is that there is no way to force the PCs consistently through 6-8 encounters/day without a level of railroading that I'm not prepared to engage in. In the majority of scenarios, either the natural encounter frequency is far lower (wilderness exploration) or the number of encounters is largely up to the PCs (dungeon exploration).

A thousand times this. 6-8 combat encounters per day means that the average PC is killing 7 people per day. 49 people per week. More than 200 people per month. Each. It means that the average PC is having their life threatened more than the defenders in the Warsaw Uprising.

It also makes 5e the biggest combat grindfest in the history of D&D; even 3.X's 4 encounters per day was ridiculous and gruelling, and 5e adds in bounded accuracy so you are much more likely to face swarms of lower levelled enemies.

6-8 encounters makes no sense of anything approaching worldbuilding, and if that's what you need to balance the game then the designers screwed up.

I do wonder if going to short rest = overnight, long rest = 1 week, would result in something closer to designer intent.

Almost certainly, yes. Even 4e was massively helped by similar rules - and that wsn't a balance issue.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...means that the average PC is killing 7 people per day.

"Encounter" and "combat" are different words.