D&D General 6-8 encounters (combat?)

[Fanaelialae]

Rolling dice to decide when a long rest happens is less gamist?

Besides, forcing every day to have seven combat encounters is the worst kind of gamism.



By counting levels instead − combat becomes narrative.

The combat encounter might all happen in a single day. Or each combat encounter can be days or years apart.

Because of some characters have survived extreme situations, they do level up faster. Other characters might take decades to reach the same level.

This is narrative gold.

Sometimes characters recover their spells in a single day. Sometimes years apart. Typically only after a special "second wind" that occurs after killing monsters. They can take the ultimate vacation, or spend months studying their spells, but they'll never recover those resources until they go adventuring.

To me, that's so deep at the gamist end of the pool, it may as well be the Mariana Trench.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Then how is it that other people notice these trends? Are you just a superior DM, or are people making this stuff up to score points on the internet?

I dunno, why don't you ask them? I guess if a person plays D&D like nothing but a tactical board game then they'll spend more time focused on the numbers that come out of it. But if I want to play a really balanced tactical board game there are a heck of a lot of better games than D&D for that.

 

[Yaarel]

Sometimes characters recover their spells in a single day. Sometimes years apart. Typically only after a special "second wind" that occurs after killing monsters. They can take the ultimate vacation, or spend months studying their spells, but they'll never recover those resources until they go adventuring.

To me, that's so deep at the gamist end of the pool, it may as well be the Mariana Trench.

Sometimes it takes days to level up. Sometimes years. There are moments of breakthrus. To me that feels like reallife.

Consider how many fantasy stories have the mage who cant remember how to cast a certain spell. Or goes thru a fallow period. Or out of the blue suddenly goes nova, when that is uncharacteristic of the character. Or spends years trying to figure out a powerful spell.

Sometimes it is days. Sometimes it is years.

It depends on the story.

What I have NEVER seen happen is: the story always has seven combat encounters per day. That story would be ridiculous.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sometimes it takes days to level up. Sometimes years. There are moments of breakthrus. To me that feels like reallife.

Consider how many fantasy stories have the mage who cant remember how to cast a certain spell. Or goes thru a fallow period. Or out of the blue suddenly goes nova, when that is uncharacteristic of the character. Or spends years trying to figure out a powerful spell.

Sometimes it is days. Sometimes it is years.

It depends on the story.

What I have NEVER seen happen is: the story always has seven combat encounters per day. That story would be ridiculous.

Folks in this very thread have explained how you don't need 7 (actually 6-8) encounters every day.

What you don't see in stories is characters undergoing extended recovery time but being unable to recover, unless they're laboring under some kind of curse. Your solution seems to be that all PCs are permanently cursed, which obviously only makes sense in an extremely limited subset of campaigns.

What you're doing is basically trying to fix a possible rat infestation by releasing giant venomous spiders into the walls. Sure, they'll kill any rats they find. Only problem is, now you have a giant, venomous spider infestation, which most people would consider worse.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Because the DM is a player too, and one who, rules as written, has quite a bit more responsibility than the others. If encounter balance bothers them, then that is just as legitimate as if the guy playing the fighter had a problem with it. If you personally don't care about it, all I can say is good for you.

But the 5MWD is not an encounter balance issue, the DM can create an encounter for the 5MWD, Matt Mercer does it all the time. At least in so far as I have observed the CR party often has only one encounter between longs rests.
As I understand it the issue with the 5MWD is intra party balance in that it favours casters over non caster and long rest classes over short rest classes.
I am wondering, if any DMs have attempted to address the issue by talking to their players about and seeing if there perception matched the DMs one.
I mean I am not very good at open world free form campaigns. I tend to run prepublished stuff and when I start a campaign I am up front about that. That the focus of the campaign will be "what ever" and I will not play silly buggers with information or plot hooks and could they meet me half way and bite on the hooks provided please and thank you, I am trying my best.

It might not be the best D&D ever, but they have not walked out on me yet.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It has to be Combat. Exploration and Social encounters use up far fewer resources, which is the whole point of having that many encounters.

No, it doesn't. In fact, an encounter doesn't even have to use up resources at all (although most do of course).

I really don't get what the big deal is about using up resources, yadda yadda yadda... Some encounters use more, some use less. One PC might have a lot of resources when the party takes its long rest, another might be completely tapped out. Most PCs will be someplace in between. As more and more encounters might pile on, the need to rest becomes greater and greater. If PCs get to the point of running on fumes and can't get in a rest, they have to be smarter when the next encounter comes along.

Part of being a good player is managing your resources, IMO, and knowing when you have to use one compared to when you just want to. You might plan to rest when you get to the next village after having a couple encounters during the day and using most of your resources, only to find the village is in flames and the adventure is JUST beginning.

 

[Yaarel]

Folks in this very thread have explained how you don't need 7 (actually 6-8) encounters every day.

What you don't see in stories is characters undergoing extended recovery time but being unable to recover, unless they're laboring under some kind of curse. Your solution seems to be that all PCs are permanently cursed, which obviously only makes sense in an extremely limited subset of campaigns.

What you're doing is basically trying to fix a possible rat infestation by releasing giant venomous spiders into the walls. Sure, they'll kill any rats they find. Only problem is, now you have a giant, venomous spider infestation, which most people would consider worse.

Consider. Psychological depression is like an extended period of time with low hit points that difficult to recover.

In D&D terms, low hit points come from low morale.

One nights sleep wont necessarily refresh morale.

It might refresh in a single day. Or be days or weeks later. Even years.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Balance is the only reason for me to avoid it. I couldn't care less if they stop and rest after every fight, if one fight could challenge them to their fullest without also TPKing them, which is a problem with 5e. It's exceedingly difficult plan an encounter that can survive a full multi-round nova of all PC abilities and dish back during all those rounds without also being so strong that it kills the group.

In my experience at third level or so and beyond Dearly encounters will not TPK a party and 3 deadly encounters will cover the daily budget

 

[Iosue]

3. So, the solution? Make the DMG direct DMs to lowball encounter difficulty. Take your XP budgets per encounter, and cut them by 40%-50%. Then tell them to run double the number of encounters. Now the PCs are more likely to have opportunities to short rest before they feel they must long rest.

The trouble is, 6-8 encounters is boring to play, takes more time at the table, and takes more DM time because you just have to create a ton of encounters. It's just inconvenient for the adventuring day to have so many, which I think is clear because here we are 8-9 years after the game first released and people are still complaining about it. 3-4 always felt more natural at the table. You also run into another problem: Boss fights and traveling days where you often only ever want one encounter in a day, and how do those work with short rest classes? Worse, the PCs might still choose to long rest before short rest classes get their full benefits.

While not necessarily disputing anything you wrote, I would say that dungeons play a very significant role in the design, even though they seem to be given short shrift in these discussions. 3-4 encounters per day sounds good if you're talking about a plot-driven adventure, or a city-based adventure. It would be far too low for a dungeon-based adventure.

I'll also note that people act like 6-8 combat encounters is this crazy, impossible number. Yet Lost Mine of Phandelver, probably the most well-received and universally praised adventure put out by WotC for 5e, is very much along those lines. You have:

Day 1: Goblin ambush and Cragmaw Hideout (6-7 combat encounters)
Day 2: Redbrand Hideout (7 combat encounters)
Day 3: Ruins of Thundertree (9 combat encounters, not counting the dragon!)
Day 4: Cragmaw Castle (9-10 combat encounters)
Day 5: Wave Echo Cave (10 combat encounters)

Certainly, not of these encounters will happen, nor will all encounters that do happen necessarily lead to combat. But certainly this is proof of design? It may not be what everyone wants, it may not even be the playstyle in fashion 8 years into 5e's life, but I don't think it can reasonably said that WotC's math was unrealistic, or even boring and out-of-fashion given LMoP's reception.

You also run into something in 5e that I don't really recall happening much before: arguments about resting. Half of the part will want to short rest to recover abilities, and the rest will see no benefit so they don't want to. It's a strange dichotomy that encourages player vs player conflict. That isn't a good outcome.

I'll certainly not gainsay others' experiences, but this has never been mine, among 3 or 4 different groups. The short rest is so short and unobtrusive, and yet beneficial to the entire party, that even if it wasn't handled as part of passage of time between set-piece encounters, I've never seen any arguments. Someone suggests a short rest, and everyone's like, "Sure. I wouldn't mind rolling some hit dice." My groups have all tended to just naturally fall into the pattern of 2-3 combat encounters, short rest, 2-3 combat encounters, short rest, 2-3 combat encounters, long rest. With variance depending on difficulty, of course.

 

[Krachek]

I realize this is sarcasm, but not playing fighters isn't much of a solution to the issue of balancing fighters against other classes. It's basically just ignoring the issue and pretending it went away.

I understand the need to have complex classes, but do we really need to have the same complexity and choice of options for all classes. There are players who don’t play wizard because they prefer simpler play, do they ask to simplify wizard in order to play them?

The need for complex options as well as a balanced adventuring day, is for players in need of challenge and strategic thinking, which is only one aspect of DnD. We can have classes and play that cover less this aspect and more other aspect of the game.