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

[Fanaelialae]

A question.

If all spellcasters switch to short rests, what classes would still be at odds?

That's a complicated question.

I would say you still have significant issues. As I see it, the main issue is one of capacity.

At level 1, a wizard makes small edits to reality.
At level 20, a wizard makes dramatic edits to reality.

At level 1, a fighter swings a sword.
At level 20, a fighter swings a sword faster.

It's like comparing an advanced robotic chef to a blender. It doesn't exactly matter whether the chef needs to be recharged for an extended period after making several meals, or if it needs to be recharged for a short period after each meal. It doesn't even really matter that the blender can run all day. The robotic chef is clearly the better option, unless you intend to have nothing but margaritas all day.

EDIT (forgot the conclusion):
IMO, the capacities in which the fighter shines need to be expanded beyond simply combat. That's the best way of narrowing the gap IMO (short of a hard nerf to casters, which is unrealistic at best, and completely undesirable to most at worst).

 

[Yaarel]

That's a complicated question.

I would say you still have significant issues. As I see it, the main issue is one of capacity.

At level 1, a wizard makes small edits to reality.
At level 20, a wizard makes dramatic edits to reality.

At level 1, a fighter swings a sword.
At level 20, a fighter swings a sword faster.

It's like comparing an advanced robotic chef to a blender. It doesn't exactly matter whether the chef needs to be recharged for an extended period after making several meals, or if it needs to be recharged for a short period after each meal. It doesn't even really matter that the blender can run all day. The robotic chef is clearly the better option, unless you intend to have nothing but margaritas all day.

I see this as mainly a design error that accidentally removed noncombat options from the Fighter class.



The Fighter is great at combat. At the same time, every class is great combat, swapping damage for other combat effects.

(By the way, "combat" includes Stealth/Detection and Mobility/Barrier. So dual-use spells like Fly and True Sight still count as combat.)

The spellcasters are great at noncombat. At the same time, the Fighter sucks at noncombat.



This has nothing to do with an imbalance in combat.

It has everything to do with the designers forgetting to give the Fighter extra design space for the noncombat stuff.

 

[Ancalagon]

The math definitely supports the idea that classes are best balanced in terms of DPR when there are 6-8 encounters (or equivalent resource expenditure) with two short tests between them per day. That doesn’t by any means mean that this benchmark must be met. It’s just the point of closest DPR balance.

Very true, 6-8 encounters is much more reasonable in a dungeon or similar adventure location than it is, say, in a city or while traveling overland.

I've run city adventures with that many encounters - but that was only because "something was going down" - ie definitely not the average day in a city!

But you are correct overall.

In my experience, the worse you can do is reliably only have 1-2 combat encounter per day. The first 5e game I ran was my Yoon-Suin campaign, and the paladin kept going nova and dominating combat. As soon as I increased the frequency and reduced the predictability - ie the paladin had to "hold back" a bit - things got better for the other classes (the party was warlock, cleric, paladin and 2 monks)

 

[Fanaelialae]

I see this as mainly a design error that accidentally removed noncombat options from the Fighter class.



The Fighter is great at combat. At the same time, every class is great combat, swapping damage for other combat effects.

(By the way, "combat" includes Stealth/Detection and Mobility/Barrier. So dual-use spells like Fly and True Sight still count as combat.)

The spellcasters are great at noncombat. At the same time, the Fighter sucks at noncombat.



This has nothing to do with an imbalance in combat.

It has everything to do with the designers forgetting to give the Fighter extra design space for the noncombat stuff.

The thing is that the ability to go nova in combat, while not entirely negligible, is fundamentally manageable. As others have posted, simply vary the number of encounters per day. If the wizard doesn't know that today is a one encounter day, then they'll be more conservative with their resources (even if it is a one encounter day).

If your players opt for a 5MWD, banning Leomund's Tiny Hut (and similar spells) is a much less dramatic change than converting all casters to a short rest resource schedule.

Heck, you could adjust the fighter with a few more long-rest-limited big-number resources, and nova wouldn't really be a class balance issue whatsoever.

There are a bunch of ways to address that imbalance without effectively making all casters warlocks. Hence why I think the lack of non-combat stuff is the real balance issue. Until you address that, you really do need 6-8 combat encounters to maintain a semblance of balance, because any of those that is a non-combat encounter is one where the fighter is likely to have about as much mechanical impact as a commoner.

 

[Yaarel]

The thing is that the ability to go nova in combat, while not entirely negligible, is fundamentally manageable. As others have posted, simply vary the number of encounters per day. If the wizard doesn't know that today is a one encounter day, then they'll be more conservative with their resources (even if it is a one encounter day).

By far, the easiest solution is to count the number of long rests PER LEVEL.

Done.

No more 5-minute-work-day, sotospeak.

To "nova" at the beginning of a new level, can mean a much tougher experience for the rest of that level.

If your players opt for a 5MWD, banning Leomund's Tiny Hut (and similar spells) is a much less dramatic change than converting all casters to a short rest resource schedule.

Heck, you could adjust the fighter with a few more long-rest-limited big-number resources, and nova wouldn't really be a class balance issue whatsoever.

There are a bunch of ways to address that imbalance without effectively making all casters warlocks. Hence why I think the lack of non-combat stuff is the real balance issue. Until you address that, you really do need 6-8 combat encounters to maintain a semblance of balance, because any of those that is a non-combat encounter is one where the fighter is likely to have about as much mechanical impact as a commoner.

 

[Fanaelialae]

By far, the easiest solution is to count the number of long rests PER LEVEL.

Done.

No more 5-minute-work-day, sotospeak.

To "nova" at the beginning of a new level, can mean a much tougher experience for the rest of that level.

I agree that it is easy. It's also very meta though. Probably not a solution that a lot of people would welcome.

 

[Flamestrike]

how is it abuse when you said

Players are to be encouraged to manage and conserve resources throughout the course of the adventuring day. It's literally the entire mechanical basis for the game. DnD after all is, mechanically speaking, a resource management game. Combat is literally HP attrition. X/ short or long rest resources.

Conserving resources during the adventuring day is different from abusing the rest mechanic and spamming Nova strikes and falling back to the 5MWD, and trying to avoid the adventuring day entirely.

Stopping the 5MWD is the DM's job in any event.

Example:

The DM sits down mid week to design an adventure for the next session or two.

Adventure synopsis: The players are [hired by a patron/ find a clue leading to/ insert hook here] stop an Evil Necromancer, who they learn has uncovered the foul Tome of Orcus, and plans to unleash a dark ritual at the ruins of the Temple of Horrors, 6 hours ride to the North.

The ritual is scheduled for midwinters eve, just 12 hours from now!

If the PCs cant stop him, all dead creatures in the surrounding 100 mile radius will arise as horrific undead, and thousands will perish.

[Now the DM draws a map and designs his encounters].

• One Very Hard 'random' encounter on the way to the ruins (with the party having enough time to Short rest after) - say the Necromancer has sent out a Demon of Orcus and undead to ambush them on the road to the temple
• [enough time to short rest, then get to and enter the dungeon]
• Dungeon entrance - Hard encounter
• Surface Room - Medium encounter
• Surface Room - Medium encounter
• PCs find stairs after that lead down to the deep Tomb under the temple, enough time to Short rest
• Tomb encounter 1 - Medium encounter
• Tomb encounter 2 - Hard encounter
• Tomb encounter 3 - Deadly encounter, BBEG

Encounters being undead, Demons, cultists and the like.

The DM can also add in a few traps or environmental challenges, maybe a few extra 'optional' encounters in a sealed off part of the Tomb (with some good loot in there as well), a social encounter or two etc.

That's how its done. Use Doom clocks enough (and be sure to spring them on the party midway through an adventure) and your players will naturally come to conserve resources and the game balances nicely.

Examples include:

• The PCs find themselves trapped in a dungeon on an island, they stopped to explore while sailing through. They need to find a way to escape before the captain of the ship leaves them for dead in 24 hours time, or they become marooned on the island.
• A mysterious tower appears in town. It the fabled tower of Zagyg, that randomly telports around the multiverse at random. Will the PCs enter and loot it before it teleports away, taking them with it?
• A BBEG plans on conduting a foul ritual. Can the PCs stop him before he completes it?
• Children have been kidnapped from the local town by monsters. The PCs lead the rescue mission. Can they save the kids, before they end up in the cooking pot, or worse?
• Bandits have been threatening the local town. PCs get word that the Bandit leader is in their camp for day. Can the PCs infiltrate the camp, and kill the leader, before he reports back to his superiors?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Frame your adventures with temporal constraints in mind (everything in the real world has temporal constraints, so to make your world come alive, so should your adventures. As an added benefit they provide win/loss conditions for the players, and drive the action and the story forwards).

 

[the Jester]

Any combination, provided that the encounters require the pcs to use resources of some kind.

 

[Flamestrike]

but how is that possible? what short rest mechanic does the fighter or rogue have that equals 3rd or 4th level spells? let alone 6th+?

Again mate, I am more than happy to show you.

You create an 11th level Wizard (with 6th level spells). I'll create a Fighter. We can run an adventure together. We can toss in a Rogue as well (they're resource neutral) and someone can play a Cleric (so we have the big 4).

Heck, you can play BOTH of the casters.

There will be a doom clock. You will have 6-8 encounters, closely adhering to the XP/ Adventuring Day chart. There will be time for 2-3 short rests.

I assure you that the Wizard is on par with the other PCs at that rest/ encounter frequency.

Ill also let a 3rd party - of your choice - vet the adventure first to prove no weirdness (no AMF's or anything silly like that). Just a standard adventure, following the DMG guidelines, with a theme in mind (Demons incursion perhaps?).

 

[Flamestrike]

@GMforPowergamers

If you want to see how it's done, send me a character sheet for your Wizard (and Cleric if you want one).

I'll do the other two PC's and knock up the dungeon.