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

[FrozenNorth]

@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.

Depends on what the question is. Would I play in a campaign with those rules? Sure, I’d be curious to see how the rules work in practice.

Would I implement such rules as DM? Probably not. I’m currently toying with the idea of turning all classes into (principally) short rest classes. So the wizard’s Arcane Recovery is modified so it applies to each rest, and they receive 2 spent slots of the highest level they can cast -2 (min level 1 slots, max level 5 slots). At 11, they get a single level 6 slot, which becomes a level 7 at 13, 8 at 15 and 9 at 17.

 

[CleverNickName]

"Story" is D&D's secret source. Apply enough of it and the players do not notice D&D's many faults.

This is a really weird thing to say about a storytelling game.

 

[Minigiant]

Who says they need to be 16 hours?

24 hours minus 8 hour long rest is 16 hours awake

There are a billion ways to do a doom clock that isnt 'get it done in the next 24 hours or else'.

Heck, you could have a non specific Doom clock to hurry the party up:

1) A rival group of powerful adventurers are also asking about the dungeon. Can you clear it and recover the loot

Jack the Rogue: So we use up all our magic and stamina killing all the monsters then meet those dudes at the entrance. I got a better idea. We wait for them.

The High priest has been abducted. The Lizardfolk plan to eat him. Can you rescue him before this happens?

Jack the Rogue: Your priest is with his master, mate. If youve come to us, too much time has passed. He's chow.

) There is a terrible plague sweeping the land. Can you recover the ingredients before the plague wipes out the town in order to claim your reward (4d6 townfolk die each day, and when the number reaches 50, the PCs dont get paid

That's multiple adventuring day then.

 

[Blue]

The 6-8 encounters (past Tier 1 play) is about resource attrition. If your other scenes use up resources in the same amounts, they count. Hint: they don't. Other types of scenes rarely use up 3+ spell slots per caster, rages per day and other combat-specific features, HD in the aftermath, and the like.

The "balance" portion is about balance between classes. I've written about it so man times that I've saved it. Here's my spiel about running fewer encounters per day.
---
There are two very different aspects that need to be met by number of encounters per day.

One of them is challenge. And yes, you can have fewer, deadlier encounters and reach your goals for this. This isn't really debated, and it's the primary - on only - one that most people think about.

The other one is balance between the at-will classes like rogue or the EB-focused warlock, and the long-rest recovery classes like full casters plus hybrids like the barbarian or the paladin.

If you took your average full caster and took away all slots, they would be less effective on average than at-will classes like the rogue. At-will > cantrip. (This doesn't include EB boosted with invocations.)

On the other hand, if you gave casters unlimited of their highest level slots, they would do more than at-will characters. A fireball with multiple opponents, etc. Slots of the highest few levels > at-will.

Putting them together, we get, in generic terms for the average character:

Slots of the highest few levels > at-will > cantrip

So in order to balance these, we need some number of spells cast using highest level slots, and some cantrips or low-impact spells (like 1st level offensive spells in T2+). Some above and some below will average out to the same as an at-will.

Let's examine that. If you run a few encounters and run the party's casters all the way out of spells - you are STILL not balancing the classes unless you also are forcing them to have a good number of rounds at less than at-will effectiveness.

An easy way to work this out is average effectiveness per action, over the course of the adventuring day.

Ah, so if you have fewer encounters, as long as the last as long as more encounters we're good, right?

Well, no. It's moving in the right direction, but duration is a thing. If an encounter is 3-4 rounds and you can a spell lasting 1 minute, you only get 3-4 rounds of it at most. But if the combat lasts 9 rounds, then you are getting 2-3 times the effect from the same slot and the same action. It's more powerful. So you need to offset it with even more rounds of lower than at-will efficiency.

A easy way to see this is the barbarian. Say you've got 3 rages per day. Assuming the encounters total to the same deadliness, is there any case where you are worse off if you can rage for every encounter instead of half of them? That's one of the things that decreasing the number of encounters does - allows duration effects to be even more powerful.

To sum up:

1. Can balance danger and challenge in fewer encounters by having tougher encounters.

2. Need to have more total rounds fighting in fewer encounters that all of the more encounters in order to maintain balance between classes.

And that second one does not often get met. Fewer encounters per day is usually fewer total rounds then if we did all of the encounters per day, and that definitely is mathematically biased in terms of the long-rest-recovery classes like casters as well as a big boost for hybrids like the barbarian and the paladin.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is a really weird thing to say about a storytelling game.

True, but they're saying that about D&D.

 

[OB1]

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?

You mean like the new crit rules? Those are basically a way to give a power bump to martials, by having only weapon damage Crits (though I bet there will be exceptions for the Rogue's Sneak Attack and Warlock's Eldritch Blast).

As to the purpose of this thread, I voted to 'forget the guidance' for a simple reason. Balance can be maintained as long as the players don't know what to expect out of any given adventuring day. It's designed to be loose so that adventuring days DON'T all become exactly the same. Balance in 5e is balance over a campaign, not any single day.

 

[Garthanos]

My point is to illustrate that the power imbalance between wizards and fighters extends to a very meta power imbalance between the player of the wizard, and the player of the fighter. At a healthy table, this may never be an issue, since the wizard player shouldn't ever opt to abuse that power imbalance. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist however, and I don't think it should be there to begin with. A more robust fighter design would narrow or even completely eliminate the imbalance.

And its not necessarily even about being unhealthy when do you bring on your big guns is a decision point that the fighter simply does not have to the degree that the caster does... including paladins which can nova.

Which goes to show that it is indeed possible.

Level Up has some great design work. However, I feel like too much of it is complexity for the sake of complexity. Given that Level Up is intended to be the complex 5e variant, they nailed the intended design. However, it simply isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

An improved revised-5e fighter doesn't seem impossible to me. They've already been taking baby steps towards adding more utility to the fighter in their publications.

via battlemaster alone right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've already literally run three on here with the same results. This would be the 4th.

maybe you should try playing in other peoples games.

Feel free to search my posting history and look for yourself.

no thank you again the evidence of over long period's supports that fighters need help, but you keep doing short adventures with doom clocks if that is what you like

Heres the deal mate. Your table doesnt cleave to the 6-8 encounter 2-3 short rest adventuring day median. That's why at your table, Casters rule.

I mean last night we finished an adventuring day that was 11 encounters and our casters did just fine (then again we have a bladesinger and a hex blade as our melee characters)

They get access to their entire toolbox for a single encounter or two instead of 6-8. They get access to resources that are supposed to be stretched over 6-8 encounters, over just 2, letting them Nova.

I don't know what makes you think my players nova? that isn't what I ever said.

Its not an inherent feature of the Wizard class. It's because you're not following the baseline and are allowing the 5MWD that you're experiencing your balance issues.

you are making things up now

You've said before you dont enforce the longer Adventuring day,

correct I let it naturally flow, so sometimes 10 or 12 sometimes 1 or 2 and everything inbetween

and you let the ab\really the fault lies with whomever is DMing

we are done

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, it's literally going to be a normal adventure cleaving to the guidelines in the DMG.

so then it should be easy to use any published adventure.

'Go stop BBEG from doing thing'. A Demonic incursion perhaps. A trap or two, and environmental challenge, some magical loot to be found, and 6-8 encounters, with enough time for 2-3 short rests.

sounds very limited to me

I'll post it with a poll afterwards to ensure its fair, and I'll provide a copy to @Mort for him to look at and judge if its 'lol nerf casters' or not.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The 6-8 encounters (past Tier 1 play) is about resource attrition. If your other scenes use up resources in the same amounts, they count. Hint: they don't. Other types of scenes rarely use up 3+ spell slots per caster, rages per day and other combat-specific features, HD in the aftermath, and the like.

The "balance" portion is about balance between classes. I've written about it so man times that I've saved it. Here's my spiel about running fewer encounters per day.
---
There are two very different aspects that need to be met by number of encounters per day.

One of them is challenge. And yes, you can have fewer, deadlier encounters and reach your goals for this. This isn't really debated, and it's the primary - on only - one that most people think about.

The other one is balance between the at-will classes like rogue or the EB-focused warlock, and the long-rest recovery classes like full casters plus hybrids like the barbarian or the paladin.

If you took your average full caster and took away all slots, they would be less effective on average than at-will classes like the rogue. At-will > cantrip. (This doesn't include EB boosted with invocations.)

On the other hand, if you gave casters unlimited of their highest level slots, they would do more than at-will characters. A fireball with multiple opponents, etc. Slots of the highest few levels > at-will.

Putting them together, we get, in generic terms for the average character:

Slots of the highest few levels > at-will > cantrip

So in order to balance these, we need some number of spells cast using highest level slots, and some cantrips or low-impact spells (like 1st level offensive spells in T2+). Some above and some below will average out to the same as an at-will.

Let's examine that. If you run a few encounters and run the party's casters all the way out of spells - you are STILL not balancing the classes unless you also are forcing them to have a good number of rounds at less than at-will effectiveness.

An easy way to work this out is average effectiveness per action, over the course of the adventuring day.

Ah, so if you have fewer encounters, as long as the last as long as more encounters we're good, right?

Well, no. It's moving in the right direction, but duration is a thing. If an encounter is 3-4 rounds and you can a spell lasting 1 minute, you only get 3-4 rounds of it at most. But if the combat lasts 9 rounds, then you are getting 2-3 times the effect from the same slot and the same action. It's more powerful. So you need to offset it with even more rounds of lower than at-will efficiency.

A easy way to see this is the barbarian. Say you've got 3 rages per day. Assuming the encounters total to the same deadliness, is there any case where you are worse off if you can rage for every encounter instead of half of them? That's one of the things that decreasing the number of encounters does - allows duration effects to be even more powerful.

To sum up:

1. Can balance danger and challenge in fewer encounters by having tougher encounters.

2. Need to have more total rounds fighting in fewer encounters that all of the more encounters in order to maintain balance between classes.

And that second one does not often get met. Fewer encounters per day is usually fewer total rounds then if we did all of the encounters per day, and that definitely is mathematically biased in terms of the long-rest-recovery classes like casters as well as a big boost for hybrids like the barbarian and the paladin.

IMO, you're overestimating the value of durations. There is some truth in what you're saying, I don't deny that, but it seems like an over exaggeration to me.

I'd be surprised if anyone is complaining about the barbarian. IMO, their per day scaling with Rages is downright weird. They start being able to rage for a small fraction of expected encounters and gradually work their way up to being able to do so every encounter. Given that a barbarian is highly lackluster without rage, I feel like the scaling is simply there for the sake of progression, rather than balance. IOW, I don't think you'd break balance if you just gave 1st level barbarians unlimited rage. They simply wouldn't have a lot to look forward to in terms of progression.

Also, every caster in your games uses 3+ spells every encounter? At my table I'd say it's typically more like 1-2, and generally just cantrips for an easier encounter. The best spells typically have concentration. Last week our 5th level party of four took on 17 zombie ogres (which I believe is several multiples of deadly) and my cleric still only used 2 real spells - spiritual guardians and spiritual weapon. In the interest of transparency, the paladin burned through every smite she had, but still. You've technically got me on 3+ if we take the average from that fight, but at the end of that fight we could have taken a short rest, spent HD, and kept going. A 5th level paladin without smite is basically a fighter whose action surge is on cool down.

Now on to the matter of durations in a multi-wave encounter. Many spell durations simply aren't especially advantageous against multiple waves. If you cast Hypnotic Pattern and a second wave arrives, it's not providing you with any greater advantage than it's already provided. The spells that do last, like Moonbeam, are often on the weaker side. They're nice for conserving resources in a long encounter, but they just aren't as impactful as something like Web, particularly in shorter encounters. Something like Haste, while impactful, starts to run the risk of the spell expiring (and therefore suffering the debuff) in longer encounters.

I don't really think it's really as advantageous or cut and dry and you are presenting it as.