D&D 5E 6-8 Encounters?

[TwoSix]

Isn't that basically the same as legendary actions?

It's slightly different in that the DM isn't having to make a decision as to whether or not to take the action after each turn, it's simply at a fixed spot in the initiative order. Also, legendary actions are normally specific actions allowed selected from a menu, giving them extra turns would give them a wider range of possible responses.

Not really different from a balance perspective, but it does play out a little differently.

 

[Zardnaar]

What's funny is the PCs have had 6-8 probably deadly fights if you use the number multiplier. Since CR 1/2 critters even if you use 6 don't tend to do much I just use the top 3-5 critters.

PCs each have a Dragonlance except the wizard who didn't take one.

Best equiped is probably the monk with a 3E era +1 shocking spear that can fire a lightning bolt 1/long rest and boots of jumping.

Fighter/Warlock has a figurine if wondrous power:goat but hasn't used it yet, cleric/sorcerer a staff of healing, wizard has some scrolls, and the rogue had a +1 keen shortswords that crits on 19-20.

That's more or less it for magic items that matter. I may have missed some minor ones or +1 something here and there.

 

[Blue]

And this is one of the inherent flaws of the system. Combat encounters are generally based on how easy they are to kill the party but HP attrition is not really a factor in determining if a encounter is challenging or not. Most encounter do not last long enough to form meaningful deviation of results.
this system really does need ways of measuring challenge past damage. preventing the horde of troll from eating the refugees is a lot more complicated to give a true challenge rating too.


Should be said a system can be good and still flawed before somebody jumps in to defend the designers. I have the upmost repect and admirationn for the designers.

By attrition I generally find that spell slots, rages used, and other per-rest features are a much bigger deal to work away in order to balance the at-will classes with the long-rest-recovery classes. HP attrition can be balanced by increasing deadliness. But less encounters, even if deadlier, does not use up the other resources like more encounters does.

 

[Olrox17]

Please don't do that. Playing the game with 5 or 9 encounters is not badwrongfun. Don't suggest you must follow the guideline or "it becomes a different game".

No, it's still D&D 5th Edition if you have a single encounter per long rest. Or a hundred

Obviously, what you're saying is true. However, how the DM chooses to handle encounters and resting does shift the balance of the game.
Any game in which you get only one combat each day, will heavily favor spellcasting classes.
A game in which you get 20 fights in one day, but also 20 short rests, will favor classes that rely on short rests, like the warlock.
It's all good, as long as everyone at the table is aware of what's going on and on board with the consequences.

 

[Charlaquin]

It certainly looks interesting, but I fear it would slow fights down to a crawl. My group is pretty bad at strategy anyway, and this would further complicate it. I do like how it sounds though.

I’ve used speed factor initiative from the DMG, which Mearls’ “Grayhawk initiative” is essentially a variant of, and in my experience, it doesn’t slow combat down to any meaningful degree. What it does is changes around where and how that time is being spent.

At the top of the round, announce what the monsters are doing in batches (e.g. “The goblin pikemen advance to continue their assault, while the archers ready another volley”), then whip around the table and ask each player what they do. Keep it simple, picking one of the actions from the “actions in combat” list from the PHB is sufficient, no need to choose specific attack targets or anything at this stage. Once they’ve declared, they roll the appropriate die or with the appropriate modifier based on their action. It helps if you give the players cheat sheets. Have them hold onto their initiative numbers in their heads or on paper or whatever until you’ve gotten everyone’s action declarations, then start counting - up from 1 with Grayhawk or down from 25 with speed factor. When a player’s initiative number comes up, they take their turn, and can only take the action they declared.

The effect this has is that, while there is a brief pause at the top of each round to declare actions, turns go by much faster because the players are spending them executing an action they’ve already decided on, rather than deliberating what they should do. A lot of DMs worry that the deliberation will just shift to the declaration phase, but in my experience it does not. Because the declaration phase is shared time, players are generally more inclined to make their decisions quickly than they are when its their turn.

 

[TwoSix]

By attrition I generally find that spell slots, rages used, and other per-rest features are a much bigger deal to work away in order to balance the at-will classes with the long-rest-recovery classes. HP attrition can be balance by increasing deadliness. But less encounters, even if deadlier, does not use up the other resources like more encounters does.

Agreed. Each resource expended tends to be better leveraged in less frequent, tougher fights; you need to some time between fights to let those 1 round or 1 minute effects wear off.

 

[jayoungr]

Sort of. I found legendary actions to be very limiting and static.

Really? I find the exact opposite, LOL! Legendary actions, to me, are much more freeing and flexible than multiple turns per round.

It also didn't fix the issues of mobility of the NPC, and the options of actions that are not just basically attacks.

But ... there are tons of legendary actions that aren't attacks, and some of them are even "the creature may move up to its speed without provoking attacks of opportunity." (One of the bosses in the Ravenloft AL series has that ability, for example.)

So the lich could use one turn to cast a spell and the next to heal itself by sucking the energy away from his undead minions. It allows for encounters to be multi-facet instead of race to zero.

I see no reason why those couldn't be legendary actions, or why they're better as "turns" ... what am I missing?

I originally started by making custom legendary actions but realized it was just easier to make multiple turn in a round because it added back the reasonable uncertainty of the order without huge changes to CR of a NPC.

To me, it seems like legendary actions have more uncertainty than multiple turns, because they can happen whenever it's most beneficial for the boss monster instead of at a predictable turn in every round.

 

[tetrasodium]

In theory they aren't "required" to be... but if they aren't you run into the fact that pcs can trivially nova their way through everything else with ease

 

[Stoutstien]

Really? I find the exact opposite, LOL! Legendary actions, to me, are much more freeing and flexible than multiple turns per round.


But ... there are tons of legendary actions that aren't attacks, and some of them are even "the creature may move up to its speed without provoking attacks of opportunity." (One of the bosses in the Ravenloft AL series has that ability, for example.)


I see no reason why those couldn't be legendary actions, or why they're better as "turns" ... what am I missing?


To me, it seems like legendary actions have more uncertainty than multiple turns, because they can happen whenever it's most beneficial for the boss monster instead of at a predictable turn in every round.

The difference is pretty small. just a feel thing. Generally I don't like LA and LR so I don't expand them.

Just different ways of playing with NPC blocks to work towards better play experiences.

 

[miggyG777]

Please don't do that. Playing the game with 5 or 9 encounters is not badwrongfun. Don't suggest you must follow the guideline or "it becomes a different game".

No, it's still D&D 5th Edition if you have a single encounter per long rest. Or a hundred

This boils down to the Ship of Theseus argument. I disagree with this notion; fundamentally altering the game mechanics of how they were intended to work is not 5e anymore.

It might seem like a non invasive change, since you are not altering the HP system, spell slots and resource economy directly but essentially you are doing just that. You alter the core mechanics of the game.

Granted many DMs and Players never cared about this in the first place, so I can see where you are coming from. I was once like that as well, until I ran the game it was designed to be. That's when I ran 5e, and not a homebrew combat system.