D&D 5E 1-3 Encounters per Adventuring Day

[Blue]

There are two related but very different metrics in play with number of encounters. Deadliness and resource management. And the first issue gets a lot more focus.

Deadliness is HP attrition and related (HD spend, etc.) I agree this can be balanced by doing deadlier encounters. I don't think many are arguing the other way, so we'll just accept this. Everything further down has nothing to do with PC survivability.

The other is resource management, or to be more specific, the balance between primary at-will classes and primary long-rest classes. They are hybrids, like the barbarian and the paladin, that combine aspects of both and are somewhat in the middle.

It's the little cousin of nova-ing. Basically that having fewer total rounds of combat per day means more actions casting slots vs. casting cantrips. And those rounds of combat broken up less also means more efficient use of slots for long-lasting spells - say having a buff up in all combats using 3 slots instead of 6, and getting to use those extra actions not recast it in a different combat are instead used contribute in other ways.

(I am assuming everyone agrees that without a class feature like warlocks can take boostering them, a cantrip has less total effect on a battle than a on-level or near-level spell. If not we can have a tangent to discuss that.)

What it comes down to, is that if you decrease the total Actions a character takes over a day's worth of combat, for at-will character it's a linear decrease, with their actions being roughly even. For casters those actions are removing more cantrip Actions than spell slot action, for a smaller total reduction in output over the day. Actions filled mostly with levels spells average more than Actions with more cantrips added into the mix. So their relative power per action increases.

This is most easily seen in play. Really, it's a dramatic difference. If you normally run 2-3 encounters per day, run a few days in a row of 11-12 encounters - the other side of the recommended amount. Tell your players about it ahead of time so they aren't blindsided and you can have a good test. You will see a dramatic change in rounds using cantrips from casters, and a real feeling of power from at-wills that can contribute equally every round, no matter how many preceded it.

Try it yourself, and then say it isn't true.

 

[Blue]

Shorter Encounter days don't impact the value of different classes nearly as much as people act like it does. I gave my reasons in the OP.

Some points your OP doesn't address:

First, long lasting spells have more effect simply because the encounter is going longer, plus lack of need to spend slots and actions to recast it again in another encounters. It's hard to argue that 6 slots and 6 actions are less efficient than 3 slots and 3 actions for the same result.

Note that arguments that it would only be 3 even with more encounters because of varying difficulty requires players to have perfect knowledge of when to cast or not, including a good expectation fo how many encoutners they will have in a day which many DMs vary. And still, it's worse because it's still would hvae been of some use in the easier encounters. So that is disproven.

Second, increasing deadliness is done by doing one, both, or a combination of tougher and/or more numerous opponents. Both of these can allow a caster to contribute more for the same number of slots and actions through good spell selection.

More numerous opponents means that area of effect can catch more. A fireball that hits 3 foes does 24d6 reduced by saves, while one that hits 5 foes does 40d6 reduced by saves. Greater contribution per action

The nature of saves in 5e is that most creatures will have 2-3 bad saves - ones that they aren't proficient in and don't have a great ability score. These bad saves mean that if you chose the right save to target, more powerful creatures will fail saves just as frequently as less powerful creatures. So if there are more powerful foes, then the same slot will be able to debuff/crowd control/whatever something more powerful. Denying an action to a more powerful creature is a greater contribution than denying an action to a less powerful creature.

Since at-will powers are generally flat per action, casters being able to contribute more per action shows how the balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day.

 

[Blue]

BTW, while I say that fewer encounters per day then designed throws off balance between classes with at-will and long-rest primary, that is not me saying at all that fewer encounters per day are something we shouldn't do.

As a DM, I can't stand the breakneck number of encounters per day that the system recommends and is designed around. And from everyone else's responses, that seems pretty universal that returning to a lower number, like the 4 encounters per day (and then some more and some less) that 3.x was designed around, would be a better fit for how the majority of DM run and often even how their adventures are designed.

 

[dave2008]

Since at-will powers are generally flat per action, casters being able to contribute more per action shows how the balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day.

I think what @FrogReaver and I am saying is the the magnitude of the "balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day" is typically very minor to non existent in our experience. I don't disagree with your analysis; however, I think simple number crunching has never reflected actual play IME. The result being, fewer encounters works 90% of the time.

 

[Blue]

I think what @FrogReaver and I am saying is the the magnitude of the "balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day" is typically very minor to non existent in our experience. I don't disagree with your analysis; however, I think simple number crunching has never reflected actual play IME. The result being, fewer encounters works 90% of the time.

I really, really urge you to try the experiment I noted at the end. It will give you a visceral feel for how much it does matter in actual play.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's said that 5e is built on the assumption of 6-8 encounters per adventuring day. I actually find that 5e remains very balanced even in 1-3 encounter adventuring days. That's what I want to discuss here. Why is it that 5e actually works just as well in a 1-3 encounter adventuring day vs a 6-8 encounter one? Also, are there any good encounter building guidelines for a 1-3 encounter day?

My reasons for 1-3 encounter days working well (in no particular order):

1. Full casters can only concentrate on one spell at a time. This leaves most of the rest of their spells being either defensive buffs or damage/healing spells - both of which are rated by the community as not very strong.

2. Short rest abilities are quite strong and getting them back after nearly every encounter does alot for characters that rely on them.

3. Fewer Encounters means more damage coming at the PC's in shorter time frames - because the difficulty of encounters you have players face in a 1-3 encounter day increases significantly compared to the difficulty of a single encounter in a 6-8 encounter day.

4. Solely at-will classes would get hosed - but no class in 5e except the rogue is purely at-will. Speaking of rogues - their claim to fame isn't combat but instead is skills and those will be even more useful. And honestly in a game where a single encounter is always very challenging by itself - out of combat solutions start to be even more appealing - potentially stealth/lockpicking instead of busting down the doors.

5. Contrary to popular belief - using long rest abilities like Rage in every encounter isn't necessarily better than using them in a few out of many encounters in the day - because the encounter difficulty gets ramped up significantly in the fewer encounter game.


I've not set down yet and tried to work out encounter building guidelines for a 1-3 encounter day. Has anyone else?-

I tried, but found that the balance issues common to low-encounter days were still there.
Fighters getting an extra Action Surge and Second Wind were still lagging behind Wizards for example, both in combat, and particularly out of combat.
Most short rest-based classes have much less power invested in their short rest abilities than long rest-based classes have in their long rest abilities. This simply giving more short rests does not give balance.

The 6-8 encounter day is talked about a lot, but I've found that the best indicator that you've hit a balance point is when all the classes are using their at will abilities a reasonable amount.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think what @FrogReaver and I am saying is the the magnitude of the "balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day" is typically very minor to non existent in our experience. I don't disagree with your analysis; however, I think simple number crunching has never reflected actual play IME. The result being, fewer encounters works 90% of the time.

Overall agree - except I think the number crunching will show the same thing.

 

[Blue]

I think what @FrogReaver and I am saying is the the magnitude of the "balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day" is typically very minor to non existent in our experience. I don't disagree with your analysis; however, I think simple number crunching has never reflected actual play IME. The result being, fewer encounters works 90% of the time.

I've replied to the same thing twice. I had urged you to give it a try, here I'm detailing examples in the past two weeks of it for me. I want to give an example of two games I'm in with the same players, just swapping who is DMing.

In one we just had a kick-ass fight with a major bad-guy. Running battle, waves of reinforcements. We had people down at vairous times, twice thought seriously about trying to retreat (but D&D makes it rather risky itself). We barely won, and out of the entire party, we had a single spell slot left.

In the other game, we're doing a more traditional dungeon crawl. We went through 20 something rooms, say half of them had combat in them. We had some toughish battles, but except for one near the middle where we can really softened up by some area of effect spells first round of combat there was little fear of going down, much less dying. Because we were worried about time, we had a single short rest (after that tough encounter) during all of this. But no monks, fighters, or other that really took advantage of it besides spending HD. At the end, I don't think we had any spell slots left for the entire party.

Okay, out of spell slots in both. Seems like equal effort on the caster part. Except it was anything but the sort. In the second, the casters ended up using some actions every combat doing cantrips. Few in the early ones, lots near the end when there were few or no slots left. While in the first every round was pulling out another spell for our life, but at the end of the day there were very little actions spent doing cantrips. Because the number of rounds for the 11-12 encounters we had was much more than the 19 round battle royale that was much more deadly. Throwing Firebolts just was not doing the same as dropping a spell, it is a really big gap.

So if the casters put out the same effort in terms of spell slots expended, but in one session it was diluted by adding in a number of cantrips, the effectiveness per action is a lot different between those sessions.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are two related but very different metrics in play with number of encounters. Deadliness and resource management. And the first issue gets a lot more focus.

Deadliness is HP attrition and related (HD spend, etc.) I agree this can be balanced by doing deadlier encounters. I don't think many are arguing the other way, so we'll just accept this. Everything further down has nothing to do with PC survivability.

One point on deadliness - it's not just about how much hp attrition you have but your opportunities to heal between it. For example: a one encounter day with identical hp attrition to a 8 encounter day is a lot more deadly because there's less opportunity to heal between the damage.

So, I'm not actually looking to balance around hp attrition - that's just a starting point to get the discussion rolling.

The other is resource management, or to be more specific, the balance between primary at-will classes and primary long-rest classes. They are hybrids, like the barbarian and the paladin, that combine aspects of both and are somewhat in the middle.

Let's talk long-rest and short rest classes as there's only one class that is solely at-will.

It's the little cousin of nova-ing. Basically that having fewer total rounds of combat per day means more actions casting slots vs. casting cantrips. And those rounds of combat broken up less also means more efficient use of slots for long-lasting spells - say having a buff up in all combats using 3 slots instead of 6, and getting to use those extra actions not recast it in a different combat are instead used contribute in other ways.

Let's do a small thought experiment.

Level 3 Wizard and Level 3 fighter. 1 Encounter day. Let's say it lasts 8 rounds. Assuming 60% chance to hit.

Wizard using Magic Missile then firebolt will do:
14+14+10.5+10.5+10.5+10.5+3.3+3.3 = 76.6

Fighter Using Action Surge and a battlemaster damage dice will do:
12+6+6+6+6+6+6+6+18 = 72

That's pretty dang close. Much closer than you were expecting I'm sure?

What it comes down to, is that if you decrease the total Actions a character takes over a day's worth of combat, for at-will character it's a linear decrease, with their actions being roughly even. For casters those actions are removing more cantrip Actions than spell slot action, for a smaller total reduction in output over the day. Actions filled mostly with levels spells average more than Actions with more cantrips added into the mix. So their relative power per action increases.

No one disputes that. But we no longer just have an at-will / daily divide. Short rest abilities have the same effect you just mentioned as long rest abilities. As demonstrated above with the fighter and wizard example.

 

[Blue]

Overall agree - except I think the number crunching will show the same thing.

I feel that positing that if you crunched the numbers it would show something does not actually address the concrete points given. Instead of handwaving, can you crunch the numbers?

When you did so in the other thread about the barbarian your numbers only dealt with one facet of raging, so forgive me if hypothetical numbers you haven't presented don't work as a counter-argument. I'd love for you to present them so we can have a reasoned and factual discussion on it.