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

[GMforPowergamers]

My point is that 5e is uses a 6-8 encounters per adventuring day to drain enough resources equally from every PC to keep them balanced. Using doom clocks to enforce that would get boring after a while as most DMs would struggle to constantly come up with good doom clocks.

in a short 1 shot or mini set of adventure it can be cool. However over multi adventures and multi levels it is dumb.
"hey rescue the good dragon wyrmling before it is sacrificed by the evil princess" is cool, but if it is bookeneded by 2 OTHER doom clocks it is weird.

 

[Minigiant]

in a short 1 shot or mini set of adventure it can be cool. However over multi adventures and multi levels it is dumb.
"hey rescue the good dragon wyrmling before it is sacrificed by the evil princess" is cool, but if it is bookeneded by 2 OTHER doom clocks it is weird.

Exactly. It eventual gets played out.

 

[Mort]

in a short 1 shot or mini set of adventure it can be cool. However over multi adventures and multi levels it is dumb.
"hey rescue the good dragon wyrmling before it is sacrificed by the evil princess" is cool, but if it is bookeneded by 2 OTHER doom clocks it is weird.

Obvious, end of the world (and the like) doom clocks sure - but time pressure doesn't always (or even usually) mean that.

Time pressure simply means you don't have unlimited time to do stuff.

Want to get that big fancy sword from the shop? ok, but if you wait too long someone else might snap it up.

Want to collect the easy bounty on the goblins infesting the sewer? Great, but so do a bunch of other adventurers.

It's rare that people can do the stuff they want on their own timeline without regard for other things going on around them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Exactly. It eventual gets played out.

as bad as it is for a campaign doing it from campaign to campaign is worse.

I started D&D in '96. I ran 3 or 4 longish campagins in 2e. I ran atleast 5 short campagins and 5 long ones in 3e/3.5 I ran 6 campaigns in 4e (1 to 10th 4 into 20s and only 1 to 30th) and that isn't counting my con and store games and any I played in.

before I got to 5e I was sick of doom clocks on both sides of the screen. I can't imagine running a campaign today with 14-20 adventures and even HALF of them being 'on the clock'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Obvious, end of the world (and the like) doom clocks sure - but time pressure doesn't always (or even usually) mean that.

my example wasn't even end of the world... it was 1 life, the gold dragon wyrmling.

Time pressure simply means you don't have unlimited time to do stuff.

I can't say I often give unlimted time... but there is a BIG difference between "Hey if you do this fast enough" and "You fail if you don't do it fast enough"

Want to get that big fancy sword from the shop? ok, but if you wait too long someone else might snap it up.

this seems a great example... I can't imagine someone (any not crazy chracter anyway) saying "we are out of healing and big booms, BUT we should press on and take the final few encounters and maybe loose or die so I can buy a shinny toy.
(not withstanding I don't run item shops like that often, but I play under people I can see doing it)
if we finish the dungeon, and get back and someone else bought it (in my games at least) that would be a new hook... is it a friend or foe who has this sword, they must be an adventurer or royalty of some kind.

Heck back in 2e I had a spell storeing sword (spell striking sword was it?) That a player REALLY wanted but it was several thousand gold and the party together didn't have 1 thousand. It was almost 2 levels and many dungeon crawls before the character saved enough to get it... but if someone else had bought it first it would have changed his goal, but not been a major loss.

Want to collect the easy bounty on the goblins infesting the sewer? Great, but so do a bunch of other adventurers.

then even if you DON'T get the bounty you find other adventurers (are they friendly rivals or potential foes or friends to team up with?) this is important (and why I keep bringing it up) becuse if they can be allies then them have the item is almost as good as you having it (more powerful allie) if they are a foe then you kill them and take it sooner or later... sounds like a win win to me.

It's rare that people can do the stuff they want on their own timeline without regard for other things going on around them.

where it is rare for people to have unlimited timelines, having a flexible one isn't...

In MY Experience the difference we are talking is somewhere between 1 hour and 24 hours... now where they may not have 2 weeks to waste, taking an 8 hour refresh shouldn't be that crazy most times.



even worse, on a doom clock hurts SHORT REST classes more. "No we can't take an hour to catch our breath,"

 

[Dausuul]

Obvious, end of the world (and the like) doom clocks sure - but time pressure doesn't always (or even usually) mean that.

Time pressure simply means you don't have unlimited time to do stuff.

Want to get that big fancy sword from the shop? ok, but if you wait too long someone else might snap it up.

Want to collect the easy bounty on the goblins infesting the sewer? Great, but so do a bunch of other adventurers.

It's rare that people can do the stuff they want on their own timeline without regard for other things going on around them.

Precisely. The bad guys won't stand around waiting for you.

This does, however, put extra work on the DM - to consider what the rest of the world is doing while the PCs are dungeon crawling, keep careful track of time passing, and make sure the consequences of delay are big enough to sting but not so big as to end the campaign.

It is certainly doable without hamfisted "Doom clocks." But not trivial. I hope the 5.5 DMG offers some tools to help with it.

 

[Mort]

my example wasn't even end of the world... it was 1 life, the gold dragon wyrmling.

I can't say I often give unlimted time... but there is a BIG difference between "Hey if you do this fast enough" and "You fail if you don't do it fast enough"

this seems a great example... I can't imagine someone (any not crazy chracter anyway) saying "we are out of healing and big booms, BUT we should press on and take the final few encounters and maybe loose or die so I can buy a shinny toy.
(not withstanding I don't run item shops like that often, but I play under people I can see doing it)
if we finish the dungeon, and get back and someone else bought it (in my games at least) that would be a new hook... is it a friend or foe who has this sword, they must be an adventurer or royalty of some kind.

Heck back in 2e I had a spell storeing sword (spell striking sword was it?) That a player REALLY wanted but it was several thousand gold and the party together didn't have 1 thousand. It was almost 2 levels and many dungeon crawls before the character saved enough to get it... but if someone else had bought it first it would have changed his goal, but not been a major loss.

I don't know, IME players REALLY like "stuff." usually more than they like "saving the world." Dangle shiny trinkets (even imaginary shiny trinkets) in front of them and they usually follow. Or even more effective, threaten to take the shiny trinkets AWAY from them (or even better, actually do it) and the group will move heaven and earth to recover them/get new ones.

then even if you DON'T get the bounty you find other adventurers (are they friendly rivals or potential foes or friends to team up with?) this is important (and why I keep bringing it up) becuse if they can be allies then them have the item is almost as good as you having it (more powerful allie) if they are a foe then you kill them and take it sooner or later... sounds like a win win to me.

where it is rare for people to have unlimited timelines, having a flexible one isn't...

In MY Experience the difference we are talking is somewhere between 1 hour and 24 hours... now where they may not have 2 weeks to waste, taking an 8 hour refresh shouldn't be that crazy most times.

If you find 8 hours is too short (seems to mostly work for my group, but that's my group) - you can do the week long for a long rest.

even worse, on a doom clock hurts SHORT REST classes more. "No we can't take an hour to catch our breath,"

I've found an hour to be too long. I generally do 5 minute short rests (maximum benefit of 2 between long rests).

 

[Maxperson]

D&D should move away from the resource attrition that was so prevalent in previous editions.
Some items will need to remain but for the most part encounters should deplete health/stamina and equipment not abilities/powers/class features.

Resources should be health/stamina and equipment (components, rations, water, weapons, armour durability...etc)

My two cents.

D&D for the first three editions was not about resource attrition. It was balanced around surviving each individual encounter. 5e is centered around resource attrition. 4e I believe was balanced around either resource attrition or resources per fight.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know, IME players REALLY like "stuff." usually more than they like "saving the world." Dangle shiny trinkets (even imaginary shiny trinkets) in front of them and they usually follow. Or even more effective, threaten to take the shiny trinkets AWAY from them (or even better, actually do it) and the group will move heaven and earth to recover them/get new ones.

I don't find either very intresting in my groups... we are more intrested in story beats and personaility building.

If you find 8 hours is too short (seems to mostly work for my group, but that's my group) - you can do the week long for a long rest.

I have... I play with rest times alot... I ran 2 'short rest is 8 hours and long rest is 1-2 weeks' campaings (with other complications as well) and 1 'short rest is 5 mins, long rest is 1 hour but you can't take more then your prof short rests between long rests, and you can't take more then half your prof long rests in a day'

I've found an hour to be too long. I generally do 5 minute short rests (maximum benefit of 2 between long rests).

that is a good modification... I go all around campaign to campagin

 

[GMforPowergamers]

D&D for the first three editions was not about resource attrition. It was balanced around surviving each individual encounter. 5e is centered around resource attrition. 4e I believe was balanced around either resource attrition or resources per fight.

2e was odd (I don't have exp to talk on 1e) and what I want to go back to. A healthy mix of per encounter, survive the encounter and resource manigment... 3e made the game resource attrition, and 4e took it away and 5e went back to 3e for it (IMO)

edit: even 2e had SOME resource management but it was at a more macro level until you got spell casters to high levels