D&D 5E The Adventuring Day has nothing to do with encounter balance.

[Vaalingrade]

My thoughts are that we are about 18 months away from a new DMG with new rules being built. So the current system that we've been working around for 8 years can survive being worked around for another year and a half. We've made due this long with whatever our own corrections and system changes have been... so just keep on keeping on until the new books get released.

The new one's going to be just as bad because we're still shackled to catering to the Old Tradition of daily attrition.

Until we overthrow that despot, the problem will persist.

 

[payn]

The new one's going to be just as bad because we're still shackled to catering to the Old Tradition of daily attrition.

Until we overthrow that despot, the problem will persist.

...or fully embrace it. Its the half in and half out thats really causing the strain.

 

[Clint_L]

The main problem that I see is that the game as written encourages lots of easier combat encounters, but D&D combat is extremely time consuming and often the least interesting part of the game, so DMs tend to avoid it.

Also, their CR system is busted but at least they've acknowledged this and are addressing it. But yeah, the main problem is that doing a bunch of combat encounters takes too long and isn't fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

...or fully embrace it.

Nope.

 

[el-remmen]

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The main problem that I see is that the game as written encourages lots of easier combat encounters, but D&D combat is extremely time consuming and often the least interesting part of the game, so DMs tend to avoid it.

DMs tend to avoid it? Which DMs?

Also, their CR system is busted but at least they've acknowledged this and are addressing it. But yeah, the main problem is that doing a bunch of combat encounters takes too long and isn't fun.

Takes too long? Seems this may be most likely attributed to a DM pacing and/or player readiness issue.

Also… Isn’t fun? For whom?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Also… Isn’t fun? For whom?

Howdy, not sure if we've met.

 

[Oofta]

DMs tend to avoid it? Which DMs?




Takes too long? Seems this may be most likely attributed to a DM pacing and/or player readiness issue.

Also… Isn’t fun? For whom?

Depends on the DM and group. Personally I like a healthy mix of the two.

 

[Bacon Bits]

My thoughts are that we are about 18 months away from a new DMG with new rules being built. So the current system that we've been working around for 8 years can survive being worked around for another year and a half. We've made due this long with whatever our own corrections and system changes have been... so just keep on keeping on until the new books get released.

Yeah, this is where I'm at. Let's see how they try to fix it.

I definitely disagree with the OP on numerous points, including the interpretation of what Jeremy Crawford was even trying to say in his tweets. Still, I'm really not interested in rehashing these same points for the fourth or fifth time just because I'm on page 1 this time.

Suffice it to say that having this same argument for literally ten years gives a pretty strong indication that some foundational problems exist with the design of adventuring days, combat encounters, short and long rests, and basic class structure. It's not individual DMs doing things "wrong" as so many have claimed over the years. If so many people continually have issues over many years, then the design is wrong because it's plainly not servicing the kind of games real people are actually trying to run. The design needs to serve the game, not the other way around.

Most "solutions" involve twisting the game into knots or limiting pretty basic adventure structures that were perfectly serviceable in previous editions, and that renders them pretty unacceptable as a solution in the general case. Further, the "five-minute adventuring day" problem clearly wasn't addressed in 5e by adding short rests and redefining encounter difficulty the way that they did. Instead, it just introduced other problems, borne mainly by the DM and primarily affecting newer DMs.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't expect perfection, but the challenge rating system was the opposite of helpful. Ideally, it should give me a broad guideline for threat levels but I found that it fails to do so miserably.

Again - this is a fool's errand. I can build encounters that are a horrible challenge for one party and trivially easy for another. As an example, imagine a party that has no ranged attacks beyond 120 feet. Then imagine another with archers are long ranged spellcasters. Put them up against manticores out in the wild with the manticore tail spikes firing at 100/200 range. The PCs that lack the capacity to attack at 120 to 200 are going to find that hard, regardless of level, while the long range PCs level 4 and above will likely not find it very hard. The game is too diverse to have a system that broad guideline that is effective.

I do like combat in D&D, but it's not exactly a speedy system, and when you have multiple lower difficulty encounters that don't really matter they become tedious slogs. ...

This is what I am counseling against here. Saying that a battle that doesn't threaten the life of PCs won't really matter is undervaluing the importance of story and the other ways you can challenge a PC. Some of the most iconic battles in my campaigns over the decades involved the PCs trying to stop someone from doing something - and the only attacks that were lanuched at the PCs were things intended to slow them down or cut them off from their goal - not kill them. Battles are tedous when there isn't an exciting story behind them that pulls the players into the action. Often, the most tedious battles are those where two forces have no objective other than just to kill each other.

Deadly challenges, battle after battle, are boring - and in truth, are either 1.) lies or 2.) end up killing the PCs off quickly. If the PCs are not dying, then the battles are not truly challenging because there isn't a real risk of failure - or the DM is saving the PCs by pulling off the throttle which ends up meaning that the PC actions have no value or merit ... the DM is actually dictating how things will go. If they are real challenges all of the time, and the DM is not protecting the PCs, then PCs die a lot - and you'll get a TPK eventually. All of those options are problematic. Further, it ends up making the heroes of the story, the PCs, feel like they're being bullied rather than that they are the heroes of the tale.

The #1 indicator of a good DM in my eyes is the ability to make an exciting game that challenges players and PCs in a variety of ways.