D&D 5E How many encounters per day is YOUR average?

[Blue]

I did see that, but I guess I would say you mentioned it without really addressing it. Also, fewer bigger encounters also involve attrition. It is not an either or scenario.

I had mentioned that you needed about the same number of actions for attrition, and then modified it that actions with durations can be more effective so you need more actions total when you move to fewer encounters.

Again, the dividing line is forcing use of enough cantrips/low-efficieny actions to offset the higher efficiency actions.

If the fewer encounters-per-day scenario doesn't push the casters into using a non-trivial number of cantrips, it is "either/or". It doesn't matter if attrition uses up some of your spell slots in a day or all of them - it matters how much you push beyond it.

Now, attrition can still come in - casters can use some cantrips, but not to the point where it offsets the high-efficiency actions. That's fine, as long as some other days are the other way around. Mixing up days so that sometimes the casters do best and sometimes the at-wills do best is great DMing and normal variation.

To give another example, the first one I gave. A barbarian who has enough rages for every combat (including that some may go beyond 1 minute and require another rage) vs. a barbarian who has enough rages for only some of the combats. That's a strong example of an either/or situation.

 

[el-remmen]

My main reason for ignoring the encounter recommendations is for pacing of sessions. We play once every 2 weeks for 3-4 hours and a combat encounter usually takes at least an hour to play through. If we were to fight 6-8 encounters in a "day" it would take probably 2 months of real-world time to get through. I much prefer having 1-2 encounters so the story can move at a fairly regular pace.

This may be the case - in the current adventure I am running (as I mentioned above) the PCs are at 9 encounters in this one adventuring day. So far it has taken three five hour sessions (July 3, July 31, and Sept 11 - we had to skip august due to scheduling conflicts) and we are about to go into the 4th session on October 2nd (we ended the last one in the middle of the climactic encounter). My guess is - assuming they survive - there will be some mop-up and searching the expansive lair afterwards, but the PCs will likely find a place to hole up and take a long rest before doing that.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I voted for 3. My combats are usually Deadly+ OR enemies come in waves OR both.

 

[Charlaquin]

If we only count days that actually feature combat, I think I average 3-5, so I split the difference and said 4.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Also, regarding short rest vs long rest classes, my house rule is to allow short rest powers to refresh between encounters OR to let players to get a number of uses per day equal to proficiency modifier. Otherwise short rest classes become really frustrating for their players.

 

[Helldritch]

I went for 5. But it varies at lot.

 

[dave2008]

Again, the dividing line is forcing use of enough cantrips/low-efficieny actions to offset the higher efficiency actions.

If the fewer encounters-per-day scenario doesn't push the casters into using a non-trivial number of cantrips, it is "either/or". It doesn't matter if attrition uses up some of your spell slots in a day or all of them - it matters how much you push beyond it.

This generally holds true in white-room theory crafting, I agree with that. But that is not my experience in actual games. I realize every table is different. But my players can almost never be sure how many encounters they are going to have any given day. So they always have to account for the next possible encounter. The wizard always sprinkles in some cantrips because he never knows when he might need a higher level spell. Similarly, the fighters are careful when the bust out their action surges or maneuvers. They just don't know, normally, if there is going to be another wave of monsters or this is the only combat for the day.

So, I agree with your math. I just disagree that it matters to the extent some claim.

 

[dave2008]

Also, regarding short rest vs long rest classes, my house rule is to allow short rest powers to refresh between encounters OR to let players to get a number of uses per day equal to proficiency modifier. Otherwise short rest classes become really frustrating for their players.

It seems like WotC is moving to "number of uses equal to proficiency modifier" paradigm too.

 

[el-remmen]

Also, regarding short rest vs long rest classes, my house rule is to allow short rest powers to refresh between encounters OR to let players to get a number of uses per day equal to proficiency modifier. Otherwise short rest classes become really frustrating for their players.

Can you talk a little more about this frustration? I have found the opposite. The short rest characters are fine and get their abilities back with little problem - but the barbarian hoards his rages to make them count since he needs a long rest to get them back - which sometimes leads to "I think you should rage!" "No! Not yet!" conversations btwn players at the table.

 

[Blue]

This generally holds true in white-room theory crafting, I agree with that. But that is not my experience in actual games. I realize every table is different. But my players can almost never be sure how many encounters they are going to have any given day. So they always have to account for the next possible encounter. The wizard always sprinkles in some cantrips because he never knows when he might need a higher level spell. Similarly, the fighters are careful when the bust out their action surges or maneuvers. They just don't know, normally, if there is going to be another wave of monsters or this is the only combat for the day.

So, I agree with your math. I just disagree that it matters to the extent some claim.

I have to agree with you. Player's intentionally using cantrips to have spells available for what comes next - even if nothing comes next but they don't know that - does both reduce the number of high-efficiecny turns and mix in more low efficiency turns.

The real goal is averaging out average action efficiency. What I was putting was just the way of ensuring it.

If players become used to "only a few encounters a day" and those encounters are corrispondingly tougher so there's less incentive not to break out the high efficiency action right now because they need them, what you are describing could end up just a few per day, just used in wrap-up. On the other hand, a DM who really does vary the amount of encounters, players have their characters keep spells in reserve - that all works out better for balancing long-rest-recovery classes (and hybrids) with at-will classes.