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

[Micah Sweet]

The thing is, I don't think that you need to empower the fighter to match the wizard. That seems to be what everyone in these conversations thinks is the only option when I bring this up. But that's basically making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I mean, couldn't there maybe be a compromise out there? Some reasonable improvement to the fighter that doesn't unleash a tide of wrath and indignation?

There are many solutions. My favorite is the Level Up fighter. But many people seem to want WotC to do it instead, and that seems unlikely, to me anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah.

5e balances around contributing equally to the combat pillar. In this sense, different classes refresh their combat resources in different circumstances: namely short rest versus long rest. They run out of combat resources at different times. Thus they become imbalanced in combat depending on which kind of the rest the DM implements.

I think the magic number is 2 short rests = 1 long rest. If you give more short rests, you are favoring the short rest classes.

 

[Flamestrike]

The point is that 5es resources are built around having 6-8 encounters per adventure day to be balanced.

So if 50% of you Adventure days are 6-8 encounters, only 50% of your adventure days are balanced.

And for the other 50 percent, half of them are shorter days with fewer encounters, and half of them are longer with more (or have more short rests).

Get it yet? Overall balance is maintained. Some days the casters get to shine (they're long rest based) and some days the Fighters will (they're short rest based). The spotlight moves around.

YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE EVERY DAY FEATURE 6-8 ENCOUNTERS AND 2-3 SHORT RESTS AND NOONE IS SAYING YOU DO.

I've said that several times now, so please PLEASE stop arguing against strawmen that no-one is actually saying.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A doom clock and forcing 6-8 encounters on the days when ever class is balanced is weird or off to me. It blatantly feels manufactured instead of subtly being so.

The 6-8 encounters can also feel contrived. You often get a well-thought out boss battle, 2-3 combats with a cool hook or enemy, and the rest are rushed trash battles to get the counter up to 8-10 (because the PCs might miss a battle or two).

If the DM is creating interesting social and exploration encounters in addition, they have even less time to come up with 8-10 well thought out combats.

 

[Mort]

Also, keep in mind, it's 6-8 hard encounters.

You can easily do less if you throw in a bunch of deadly ones. Especially as "deadly" in encounter design doesn't actually mean deadly - it means the party will likely have to throw roughly 25%+ of their combat resources at it or risk someone going down.

Of course, go a little too hard and you risk tipping the encounter into likely TPK territory. But, I've found that's not as huge an issue as I initially feared. Especially if proper escape opportunities are provided.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's 4 adventuring days, with the Caster likely shining on days 1 and 3 and the Martials likely shining on days 2 and 4.

Overall balance is maintained, and the spotlight moves from PC to PC. Everyone has a chance to shine, the stakes are high, nothing is contrived, and the adventure is propelled forward with impetus and win/lose effects in order.

That is incorrect according to your own arguments. The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters. So what you end up getting is:

1. Casters shine on days 1 and 3
2. Everyone contributes more or less equally on day 2;
3. Fighter and Rogue contribute more on day 4…unless some encounters are missed …or the party feels like they can’t take any short rests and save the priest… in which case it goes back to equal balance.

Seems like a great deal for casters!

 

[Maxperson]

Really 6-8 encounters is too much.

PCs after level 5 lave too many standing "daily" resources.

If they have too many standing daily resources, more encounters takes care of that. So how is 6-8 too much?

 

[Yaarel]

@Maxperson, @UngainlyTitan, @Fanaelialae, @Micah Sweet, @Flamestrike, @FrozenNorth, etal.

Can a compromise be helpful? I am probably ok with:

• A Downtime of at least a week of rest automatically counts as a long rest.
• During an adventure, all rests are short rests.
• Twice before the next level, a player can change one short rest into a long rest.

This ability to switch a short rest satisfies my need for narrative flexibility to be able to tell different kinds of adventure stories, when combats happen at different frequencies, whether covert ops surprise-attacking room to room or pirates sailing the open seas.

When characters end an adventure and go into Downtime, they automatically refresh: even if they used up their long rests and havent leveled up yet. A minimum of a week of rest defines a Downtime, to ensure the flavor that the players are definitely not adventuring. (Also, a brief google found that eight days is the average amount of ideal vacationing for the purpose of relaxing from work. So about a week Monday to Monday off, makes sense.)

There are still ambiguous corner cases. In my campaigns, players normally do social encounters during Downtime, relevant to the various ambitions they are working toward. So it is possible to level up during Downtime. This shouldnt be a problem.

More awkwardly, a seafaring campaign might sail for months. Encounters might be weeks apart. So whether a sailor on a vessel is in an adventure or in a Downtime is ambiguous. Maybe, if the player hasnt seen combat action for a week, the journey can start counting as a downtime? Then the second week is a week of Downtime that automatically counts as a longrest? Like I said, awkward.

Anyway, the extensive timeframe of journeys can be handled separately. The point is, a Downtime automatically refreshes regardless of leveling. Meanwhile, adventures have two long rests per level and the player decides when these two happen.

 

[Flamestrike]

You’re wrong. The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters. So what you end up getting is:

1. Casters shine on days 1 and 3
2. Everyone contributes more or less equally on day 2;
3. Fighter snd Rogue contribute more on day 4…unless some encounters are missed, in which case it goes back to equal balance.

Seems like a great deal for casters!

Yeah no, two days are longer days with multiple encounters and multiple short rests possible. Two days are shorter days (not that the PCs know that of course, because they're used to the DM springing unexpected doom clocks on them so they self-police resource usage).

If you use Doom clocks regularly enough, your Players will not Nova, because they expect you to throw one at them.

 

[tetrasodium]

And for the other 50 percent, half of them are shorter days with fewer encounters, and half of them are longer with more (or have more short rests).

Get it yet? Overall balance is maintained. Some days the casters get to shine (they're long rest based) and some days the Fighters will (they're short rest based). The spotlight moves around.

YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE EVERY DAY FEATURE 6-8 ENCOUNTERS AND 2-3 SHORT RESTS AND NOONE IS SAYING YOU DO.

I've said that several times now, so please PLEASE stop arguing against strawmen that no-one is actually saying.

No because six to eight encounters is an unworkable bonkers target to begin with & it takes serious(often contrived or forced) effort to hit that target with any regularity. The other half are divided into "shorter" and "much shorter"..
In order to have them "longer" and "much longer" you gusrentee that for some of those only the contrived reason will be remembered because after spending so many sessions stuck in that slog of a megadungeon crawl nobody will remember anything else that was going on