D&D 5E How many combat encounters per adventuring day does your group have?

[Crimson Longinus]

What are the features of "too long"?

It is a time longer than preferable.

And yeah, very subjective. But for me refreshing my long rest abilities every third session would definitely be too long. I'd expect to level up about that often. (And that point you might just remove long rests. You get your stuff back when you level up!)

 

[Don Durito]

What are the features of "too long"?

Basically what Crimson Longinus said.

Ultimately, a reset at the end of every session would be ideal. It would mean less tracking and players wouldn't be going into the session know that they probably won't get a chance to use their coolest class features or spells this week.

It's also worth noting that if it takes 3 or 4 sessions to hit the intended encounter number and you don't play every single week that real world time can really blow out.

 

[clearstream]

It is a time longer than preferable.

And yeah, very subjective. But for me refreshing my long rest abilities every third session would definitely be too long. I'd expect to level up about that often. (And that point you might just remove long rests. You get your stuff back when you level up!)

I use slower than the levelling rate outlined on DMG 261, which envisions 2-3 four hour sessions per level beyond tier 1. So one level per 8-12 hours of play.

I can see that the two PCs who didn't die levelled from 4th to 9th over the 30 sessions I've cited. So one level per 6 sessions or 12-18 hours of play. Taking roughly 1.5x as long as DMG guideline. Characters are refreshing their abilities just over once per level.

If you work through the maths, its quite easy to tabulate the 'adventuring days' per sessions per levels implied in the DMG guidelines. Armed with that, a DM can balance things to what their group most enjoys. 5e is roughly speaking robust through to tier 3, so extending time spent in tier 2 and 3 plays well.

Following guidelines with PHB rests you get a ratio of approximately an adventuring day per session, so 40-50 adventuring days and sessions to go from 1-20. For me, that is a bit too compressed. If using standard XP rules, the number of encounters becomes highly forced. Spacing out refreshes creates room for far more non-combat play.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I think the problem some folks are having understanding how a 5 hour session can get through, say 10 combat encounters boils down to two, 'simple' things: "RAW versus RAI", and "battlemaps".

I very much take the large scoop of RAI and slather it in "Just make it up and keep playing" sauce.

For example:

Player: "I rush towards him with my tower shield and try and push him back through the doorway!".
Me: "You have anything special to make that easier for you?"
Player: "Nope, just a big shield...oh, and about 40lb of armour on"
Me: "Ok. Athletics, Strength, Check against... DC 12"
Player: "Whoo-Hoo! I got a 17 total!"
Me: "You slam into the mercenary elf woman, easily sending her backwards through the door and onto her butt. You are now...right at the door? With your shield acting 'as the door' I take it?"
Player: "Ha! Yes. Exactly....you guys have a round or two to GET HIM OUT OF HERE! I'll hold the door!"

That is translated to ALL manner of rolls in the game. We don't do a lot of "looking up" of various rules and whatnot. We also don't use Multiclassing or Feats...and only use the PHB, MM, and DMG (with exceptions on case by case basis for other races, classes, spells, etc from other sources).

So, if you are running a game with "all the sweet, sweet candy sprinkles" (re: Feats, MC, all official WotC books, other 3rd party books, etc), and you are also trying to go by "the rules" (re: RAW) as much as possible....AND using miniatures or some kind of "battle map"? Then yeah...you're hooped!

Drop all that, go back to basics, switch to Theatre of the Mind, and I can all but guarantee you'll be finishing combats in a fraction of the time. If everyone is used to "visuals" and "all the sweet, sweet candy sprinkles" (rules/books), things may not go so smoothly for the first couple sessions as the Players grapple with the loss of "but look right HERE!..." (pointing at rules, miniatures, maps, etc), but they will eventually replace that with the wide-eyed wonder of imagination!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[clearstream]

Hiya!

I think the problem some folks are having understanding how a 5 hour session can get through, say 10 combat encounters boils down to two, 'simple' things: "RAW versus RAI", and "battlemaps".

I very much take the large scoop of RAI and slather it in "Just make it up and keep playing" sauce.

For example:

Player: "I rush towards him with my tower shield and try and push him back through the doorway!".
Me: "You have anything special to make that easier for you?"
Player: "Nope, just a big shield...oh, and about 40lb of armour on"
Me: "Ok. Athletics, Strength, Check against... DC 12"
Player: "Whoo-Hoo! I got a 17 total!"
Me: "You slam into the mercenary elf woman, easily sending her backwards through the door and onto her butt. You are now...right at the door? With your shield acting 'as the door' I take it?"
Player: "Ha! Yes. Exactly....you guys have a round or two to GET HIM OUT OF HERE! I'll hold the door!"

That is translated to ALL manner of rolls in the game. We don't do a lot of "looking up" of various rules and whatnot. We also don't use Multiclassing or Feats...and only use the PHB, MM, and DMG (with exceptions on case by case basis for other races, classes, spells, etc from other sources).

So, if you are running a game with "all the sweet, sweet candy sprinkles" (re: Feats, MC, all official WotC books, other 3rd party books, etc), and you are also trying to go by "the rules" (re: RAW) as much as possible....AND using miniatures or some kind of "battle map"? Then yeah...you're hooped!

Drop all that, go back to basics, switch to Theatre of the Mind, and I can all but guarantee you'll be finishing combats in a fraction of the time. If everyone is used to "visuals" and "all the sweet, sweet candy sprinkles" (rules/books), things may not go so smoothly for the first couple sessions as the Players grapple with the loss of "but look right HERE!..." (pointing at rules, miniatures, maps, etc), but they will eventually replace that with the wide-eyed wonder of imagination!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Don Durito]

Hiya!

I think the problem some folks are having understanding how a 5 hour session can get through, say 10 combat encounters boils down to two, 'simple' things: "RAW versus RAI", and "battlemaps".

I very much take the large scoop of RAI and slather it in "Just make it up and keep playing" sauce.

For example:

Player: "I rush towards him with my tower shield and try and push him back through the doorway!".
Me: "You have anything special to make that easier for you?"
Player: "Nope, just a big shield...oh, and about 40lb of armour on"
Me: "Ok. Athletics, Strength, Check against... DC 12"
Player: "Whoo-Hoo! I got a 17 total!"
Me: "You slam into the mercenary elf woman, easily sending her backwards through the door and onto her butt. You are now...right at the door? With your shield acting 'as the door' I take it?"
Player: "Ha! Yes. Exactly....you guys have a round or two to GET HIM OUT OF HERE! I'll hold the door!"

That is translated to ALL manner of rolls in the game. We don't do a lot of "looking up" of various rules and whatnot. We also don't use Multiclassing or Feats...and only use the PHB, MM, and DMG (with exceptions on case by case basis for other races, classes, spells, etc from other sources).

So, if you are running a game with "all the sweet, sweet candy sprinkles" (re: Feats, MC, all official WotC books, other 3rd party books, etc), and you are also trying to go by "the rules" (re: RAW) as much as possible....AND using miniatures or some kind of "battle map"? Then yeah...you're hooped!

Drop all that, go back to basics, switch to Theatre of the Mind, and I can all but guarantee you'll be finishing combats in a fraction of the time. If everyone is used to "visuals" and "all the sweet, sweet candy sprinkles" (rules/books), things may not go so smoothly for the first couple sessions as the Players grapple with the loss of "but look right HERE!..." (pointing at rules, miniatures, maps, etc), but they will eventually replace that with the wide-eyed wonder of imagination!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

It's not the time the combat takes, it's the time the things that aren't combat take.

 

[Asisreo]

It is a time longer than preferable.

And yeah, very subjective. But for me refreshing my long rest abilities every third session would definitely be too long. I'd expect to level up about that often. (And that point you might just remove long rests. You get your stuff back when you level up!)

Well, a full adventuring day is, or at least very close to, the amount of exp you'd get to level up. Obviously, the adjustment for multiple creatures reigns that in but random encounters resolved throughout the traveling days can rebalance that.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

As far as rest schedules go, non-combat encounters only count if they use up combat level resources.

Think about it in terms of exploring an old school dungeon. If you can manage 8 fights before a rest, then if you can sneak around or talk your way around another 8 then that's so much further into the dungeon you can get, and the more loot you can find.

That's all to the good, but there's no way players are going to go "well we've had four battles and managed to avoid four more by being clever, that's our budget for the day so let's head back to town."

Do what now? Did you mean to respond to someone else? This has nothing (directly) to do with the linked article from the Angry GM or what I was saying.

But, yeah, I agree that players aren't tracking an encounter budget, per se. But they are managing resources so... perhaps close to the same thing.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Two comments:

Yes. This is my biggest issue with the rest schedule. If I try to follow WotC's timing, too long passes in real time before players get to refresh their stuff.

I've seen this quibble before but I still fail to see how real time must relate to in-world time at all. A single 3 hour session might comprise of several in-world days (or weeks or even years) or 3 sessions might comprise a single in-world day. Real world time needn't have anything to do with in-world time. In a game that can last for a year or more IRL, players can afford to be patient with in-world ability recharges, IMO.

Ultimately, a reset at the end of every session would be ideal. It would mean less tracking and players wouldn't be going into the session know that they probably won't get a chance to use their coolest class features or spells this week.

The "less tracking" argument is really alien to me. D&D Beyond does all the tracking for the player and is ready for them the next time a session is held. Same for a sheet of paper in meat space - except replace "clicks" with "pencil marks". The virtual and real sheet are both completed by session end and are now available for the player to study between sessions (ok - maybe I'm dreaming here) so they can think about what they might do next session mechanically.

Unless you have a 5+ hour long session - or are a remarkable DM with quick acting players who can get through many encounters in a short time - resetting (i.e. long resting) at the end of every session results in virtually never pushing the PCs to their resource capacity. It is certainly fine to play either way, but the game experience will be markedly different. I suppose that is all about expectations but, for our table, no encounter or session is guaranteed to be balanced or easy or hard. It's about recognizing the challenge in the moment and making decisions that add to the story and the fun at the table.


Example: in an adventuring day that lasted 3 sessions, our group (6 PCs of level 2 to 5) were trapped in an underground manor. By the end of the 3rd session, my Gnome Trickery Cleric had blown through his spell slots and had his max HP reduced to 7 by vampiric mist. I knew going into the 3rd session we were in trouble but the party was determined to get out of there alive, possibly with the information we came for. Well, sh*t got real when the party got effectively split and stone beetles came out of the walls to knock out my character. Meanwhile a carrion crawler was doing a number on many of the other party members far down the wending hallway with a few PCs getting paralyzed but managing to save on subsequent turns. After my PC endured one failed and one successful death save, our rogue managed to pull him to "safety" away from the beetles but that ended up being too close to the carrion crawler. Hit while down, my PC was toast and dragged off to be consumed. Had we reset between sessions, this particularly fun and memorable session likely would have played out very differently - perhaps, I would argue, in a less memorable way.

I dunno - really just a preference thing at the end of the day- one can have fun with resetting after every session so the heroic ability meter is usually towards the peak -or- one can have fun with not resetting after each session which can often bring in the challenge of strategizing what to do when resources are inevitably low.

TL;DR: carrion crawlers are nasty CR 2 critters: +10 to hit with the paralyzing tentacles!

 

[Malmuria]

Reading the responses, I think for a lot of people the feel of a game "session" needs to be considered, even though it's ostensibly unrelated to the adventuring day. For me, spending 2+ sessions in the same location and same 16-hour in game period can easily feel like a slog, or feel that not enough is really happening. My favorite sessions are one's where a discrete activity takes place and is semi-concluded. That doesn't necessarily mean that one session must equal one adventuring day, but also means that the adventuring day can't be stretched over X sessions without the game feeling slow (for me). I think my ideal limit is 2 sessions per adventuring day with one deadly combat per session.