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

[FrogReaver]

If there's one thing to take out of this discussion. It's that the frequency of short rests is perhaps the most important metric balance wise.

I have to agree with others that 1-3 encounters is fine at lower levels, but I think it's not ideal past around say level 8 when primary casters have so many spells. (But now we're starting to get outside of the range at which most people play).

But it's not that big an issue either. It doesn't really bring new issues into the game, it just compounds issues that already exist (healing magic will likely be more abundant - more out of combat problems will be solved by spells etc - but these things already exist).

There's a few other potential issues too. If fighters can action surge every combat, then it no longer feels like they have anything special they can bring out for a boss fighter.

But of course you gain a lot not being tied to repetitive loop of encounters then long rest which doesn't seem to suit the style of game the vast amount of players seem to be playing.

I'd like to look at the numbers for level 8 and see how much it actually changes things.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I have no desire to try 11-12 encounters and I have done 6 & 7 encounter "days;" however, we typically get through 2-3 in a "day." I'm telling you it hasn't made a noticeable difference for I group. You can believe more or not, I just think there is enough variability with the rules that we can both be correct.

Heck, we (me and my group) even spent about 30 min. discussing the issue before one of your sessions about a year or two ago when another one of these type of discussion popped up here. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making assumptions about the relationship between the day and # of encounters and they confirmed my feeling was accurate. There is no noticeable difference in our group in our style of play.

 

[Shiroiken]

Having run

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.

Having run both 1-2 encounter days and 10+ encounter days with the same group of characters, my experience differs greatly than your OP.

 

[Asisreo]

I think what's interesting is that this argument somewhat leans into how real exp affects the perception of encounters. In milestone, you may think getting a level is equal after you complete a quest with 2-3 encounters between start and completion but most normal-hard encounters don't give alot of exp when not playing with milestones.

I think this gives us insight on how the designers perceived an adventuring day in regards to the rewards. They want more fights so that the exp builds quite well over time so that's what they designed. Plus, I believe they wanted dungeons to still be a massive part of the game which they aren't in most tables, unfortunately. It doesn't take much of a megadungeon to get around 6 encounters (especially if the journey there and back includes one or two encounters).

 

[Blue]

You must take a wizard relative to a fighter in a 6 encounter day and compare that with a wizard relative to a fighter in a single encounter day. You seem to be saying a wizard does more per round in a single encounter day than a wizard in a 6 encounter day - which while true isn't a useful point by itself.

Thank you for your measured and reasonable tone, I will try to match it. I think we got a bit adversarial.

That's not quite the points I was making. Let me try to be clear.

1. Characters take more Actions during encounters over the course of a 6-8 encounter day than during a 1-3 encounter day. If in both cases spell slots are expended by the end of the day, that means in the 6-8 encounter day more Actions were filled with Cantrips, which (baring class feature boosts like the warlock) have less effect than on-level and near-level spells.

Averaging in a lesser effect means that the average effect per Action is less for a caster during a long day.

Casters having a variable effect per day means that their balance relative to primary at-will classes change based on the number of encounters per day.

2. Spell slots and the actions to cast them can be (not are) more efficient in larger encounters.
2a. A long lasting spell that lasts for 8 rounds will have more total effect than one that lasts for 4. That's more likely in harder encounters as they tend to run longer.
2b. If encounter deadliness is increased via more foes, area of effect can do more total damage/affect more foes per casting, while at-will actions are single target.
2c. If encounter deadliness is increased via more powerful foes, due to the nature of creatures in 5e having 2-3 bad saves the proper spell selection can make more powerful foes just as easy to effect as weaker foes. So the same spell slot can action deny/debuff/or otherwise impair a more powerful creature. At-wills usually target HPs via AC, both of which usually increase with a more powerful creature so they don't have an outsized effect.

Taken together, this means that starting from the baseline of a spell slot having the same effect regardless of encounter deadliness, we can see that there are cases when a slot can be even more effective. This can, when it takes place, further increase the effect per Action for casters in ways that the primary at-wills usually do not match. (They can - for example a grappler build can go after a more powerful but physically weak/clumsy foe. But that's not "business as usual" for most groups.)

One great point you brought up I didn't address is short rests. I've seen them all over the place from after every encounter to once in about 12 encounters (just two weeks ago - we were against the clock).

Instead you should be considering the impact the wizard is having on the single encounter day and compare that with the impact the wizard is having on the 6 encounter day. Impact is not measured by looking at their actions alone but also at what heir allies and their opponents are able to do. So the question is: how do we measure impact. So far you've disagreed with any method I've suggested - but while not perfect I'm finding my measurement methods for impact far superior to your ideas around it.

I think that's really where we need to begin. How should we be measuring impact.

As a simple example: consider the impact of doing 10 DPR against an enemy with 100 hp. Now consider the relative impact of doing 20 DPR against an enemy with 200 hp. I would say both characters have the same impact on the fight at hand. However, throw in an ally that does 500 DPR in the first fight and one that does 20 DPR in the second fight. I would now say the first Character has less impact than the 2nd.

So then impact IMO is a function related to your own actions, ally actions and enemy actions. Any measure that isn't accounting or comparing for all 3 will be fatally flawed.

So how do you propose we measure impact?

When modelling is hard because of all of the factors, we can go to original source. Play a few high encounter days with your normal players. Do 6-8 encounters between long rests with two short rests about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through. Tell them ahead of time so they aren't blindsided as that would put a spin on it. I mention a few, because the first might have lessons learned that will impact how they play in future ones. See if there is more cantrip usage. See how the at-will characters feel.

(Note: Some things that may impact this. If you are playing Tier 4 or higher Tier 3, spell slots may be so plentiful that cantrips aren't used as much. Also, check if your players actually have a good mix of primary at-will and primary long-rest. In one group I play in the DM does 1-2 encounters in a regular day, and most of the player tend to play something that can nova in order to survive the high deadliness, so that group doesn't have a mix.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

@FrogReaver:

So, I am a bit late to the discussion. I am not certain of your intent.

Do you want short-rest abilities to be more thought of as per encounter? You mention short rests after nearly every encounter so I wondered.

I think the reason 1-3 encounters works is simply because at-will characters just play as they always do, at-will. Others can use their abilities more regularly without necessarily worrying about running short before the adventuring day is over.

Of course, those limited use abilities tend to be stronger than at-will, so I would recommend reducing them or buffing the at-wills slightly. It might not be necessary, but that would be a concern of mine.

Another option if you want fewer encounters per day, is to change short-rest abilities and making them long-rest. Then you really don't have to adjust the challenges of the encounters.

Anyway, I think your intent was more to increase the difficulty of the encounters to compensate for fewer per adventuring day. I think you would need to be harsh in the sense of 2 hard and 1 deadly, or 2 deadly per day, if your goal is to reach the suggested XP per adventuring day from the DMG.

Personally, as a player I don't want slug-fest encounters all the time. It would get tiresome. If you aren't concerned with the XP guidelines, then maybe an easy, moderate, and a hard might be the daily "norm", occasionally swap out 2 of the 3 for a deadly or all three for a very deadly?

 

[FrogReaver]

Thank you for your measured and reasonable tone, I will try to match it. I think we got a bit adversarial.

Thank you.

That's not quite the points I was making. Let me try to be clear.

I think that's where your points lead.

1. Characters take more Actions during encounters over the course of a 6-8 encounter day than during a 1-3 encounter day. If in both cases spell slots are expended by the end of the day, that means in the 6-8 encounter day more Actions were filled with Cantrips, which (baring class feature boosts like the warlock) have less effect than on-level and near-level spells.

Averaging in a lesser effect means that the average effect per Action is less for a caster during a long day.

Casters having a variable effect per day means that their balance relative to primary at-will classes change based on the number of encounters per day.

A few things.

1. There are no at-will classes (except the rogue). Every class has either long rest or short rest abilities.
2. Your point itself is not in dispute. It's relationship to actual impact is.

2. Spell slots and the actions to cast them can be (not are) more efficient in larger encounters.

I guess it depends on how you define efficiency. Using the definition you seem to be going for - greater effects per action - I would say that all short rest and long rest abilities are typically more efficient in fewer larger encounters per day. That doesn't mean their impact is higher in those encounters though.

2a. A long lasting spell that lasts for 8 rounds will have more total effect than one that lasts for 4. That's more likely in harder encounters as they tend to run longer.

No dispute. But that doesn't reflect back to impact.

2b. If encounter deadliness is increased via more foes, area of effect can do more total damage/affect more foes per casting, while at-will actions are single target.

No dispute again. But the question is one of impact. Suppose the wizard fireballs and gets 1/3 of the enemies which in a large fight might be 4. Compare that to a wizard who fireballs and gets 2 of the 3 enemies in a single encounter in a 6-8 encounter adventuring day. He hit more targets, but is he really having a bigger impact?

2c. If encounter deadliness is increased via more powerful foes, due to the nature of creatures in 5e having 2-3 bad saves the proper spell selection can make more powerful foes just as easy to effect as weaker foes. So the same spell slot can action deny/debuff/or otherwise impair a more powerful creature. At-wills usually target HPs via AC, both of which usually increase with a more powerful creature so they don't have an outsized effect.

It seems to me that worst case that turns the single extremely super deadly encounter into 2-4 separate hard encounters (except ones that the wizard can't use an additional concentration spell and that hitting the wizard to break concentration can unleash 1-3 additional foes on the party).

That said - a big solo enemy without legendary resistance against a party of 9th+ level pc's with spells like hold monster can single handedly be defeated by that spell. So that is something worth considering in the encounter guidelines.

I'm leaning toward the ideal recommendation being 1-2 enemies per PC.

One great point you brought up I didn't address is short rests. I've seen them all over the place from after every encounter to once in about 12 encounters (just two weeks ago - we were against the clock).

When playing the few encounters per day - my base assumption is one SR per encounter.

When modelling is hard because of all of the factors, we can go to original source. Play a few high encounter days with your normal players. Do 6-8 encounters between long rests with two short rests about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through. Tell them ahead of time so they aren't blindsided as that would put a spin on it. I mention a few, because the first might have lessons learned that will impact how they play in future ones. See if there is more cantrip usage. See how the at-will characters feel.

I've done both before. 6-8 encounter days are usually far easier IMO.

(Note: Some things that may impact this. If you are playing Tier 4 or higher Tier 3, spell slots may be so plentiful that cantrips aren't used as much. Also, check if your players actually have a good mix of primary at-will and primary long-rest. In one group I play in the DM does 1-2 encounters in a regular day, and most of the player tend to play something that can nova in order to survive the high deadliness, so that group doesn't have a mix.)

You've got to be careful though - just because they do something and think it works better doesn't necessarily mean it is.

 

[Stoutstien]

I think one way to go to 1-3 encounter scheme without necessarily just making all of them deadly is to including terms for winning that don't correlate with just damage received vs damage dealt.

A pack of 12 gnolls wouldn't be a hard encounter for a lv 5 party but they could tear apart the 20 towns folks the party finds trying to survive the gnoll pack ambushing their caravan. Having more than one conflicting goal in encounters can make them feel harder or more deadly without it being so.

 

[Asisreo]

I think one way to go to 1-3 encounter scheme without necessarily just making all of them deadly is to including terms for winning that don't correlate with just damage received vs damage dealt.

A pack of 12 gnolls wouldn't be a hard encounter for a lv 5 party but they could tear apart the 20 towns folks the party finds trying to survive the gnoll pack ambushing their caravan. Having more than one conflicting goal in encounters can make them feel harder or more deadly without it being so.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, and I hate having to bring such technicalities, but 12 gnolls is a hard encounter for a party. What's interesting is that more enemies always make something harder for anybody. It also makes things swingier.

 

[Stoutstien]

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, and I hate having to bring such technicalities, but 12 gnolls is a hard encounter for a party. What's interesting is that more enemies always make something harder for anybody. It also makes things swingier.

I was speaking more in a general sense of it wouldn't be a hard encounter for the party to figure out and succeed at and not in terms of the XP / CR budget challenge rating. I should have be more specific.
It could easily be 8, 10, or 15 gnolls and for the most part players will apply the same tactics for all of them. 12 just felt right for me because I'd probably run them in initiative groups of 3 acting as a loose sub unit.