D&D 5E 6-8 encounters/day - how common is this?
zaratan
First Post
I'm running the same campaing, my solution was simple, just don't let PCs get full recover from long rest until they reach the properly fatigue point. Nightmares can explain that. This keep the plot, the balance and is fantastic to see players don't go out all resorces before sleep since they don't know if they will recover that.
Flamestrike
Legend
Unless I am very much mistaken, isnt OOtA effectively a series of smaller set piece areas (mini dungeons, each with their own chapter) separated by longer distances where its not '1 adventuring day per day'
Chapter 1 (Velkenvieve) for example has 14 encounter locations (or around two AD's - standard for these adventures to get PCs to 3rd). The oozing temple has 6 (plus a possible encounter or two on the way and randoms). The lost tomb has 5 (plus daily randoms). Every other chapter roughly conforms to the 6-8 section also.
When you're not exploring one of these individual 'zoomed in' sections youre travelling 'between chapters' and not likely to get more than 0-2 encounters on one of these days. I dare say days will pass with no encounters at all. There are also several 'rest' areas where you can engage in downtime activities.
Which is perfectly acceptable - a risk of an encounter or two off camera on the way to the 'central' adventure locations, then zooming in for a standard 'longer' AD where the PCs are moving down 10' wide corridors and not fast forwarding though hours or days at a time.
You get this right? Its been told to you often enough but you seem to be willfully ignoring it at this point - you dont ram 6-8 down your parties throats every single day. You dont even do it every single adventuring day. Its OK to have some days feature no encounters. Its OK to have some feature just one. Its OK to have more than 6-8.In fact, If youre ramming 6-8 medium to hard encounters every single day on your party, I'd go so far as to say youre doing it wrong. Youre not supposed to religiously stick to the magic 6-8 figure.
Its a guideline; a default balancing point where the encounter difficulty and PC classes balance out. It is not a set in stone 'must obey' bit of RAW that you need to dogmatically apply. The DMG makes no such rule - it simply gives you a peek 'behind the curtain' and tells you how long long rest resources are supposed to last (on average), and how many short rests you should be handing out to your PCs per long rest (on average).
You'll have longer AD's and you'll have shorter AD's You'll have days with more short rests, and you'll have days with less. You'll have harder than 'medium-hard' encounters, and some you shouldnt fight and will be lucky to survive if you do. You'll have trivial encounters that you can steamroll without breaking a sweat. But the sweet spot - the balancing point - where encounters and classes balance the best - is 6-8 medium to hard encounters and 2ish short rests per long rest.
Or to be more correct, the classes balance the best when the long rest dependent classes are conserving resources in expectation of a 6-8 encounter AD. They dont need that many encounters - just to conserve resources in expectation of that many.
Throw that many at them around 50 perecent of the time (say...in zoomed in areas of published adventures - hint, hint) and leave the rest of the travel/ off camera stuff to the threat of an encounter or two maybe (and maybe more - gotta keep em guessing!).
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
I'll stop you right there.
I have played Lost Mines of Phandelver.
I have DMd the D&D Next Legacy of Crystal Shard, and am now DMing OotA.
Not even once during all those sessions have I ever experienced an eight encounter day.
I have managed to do set pieces that assume a string of connected fights, even perhaps five of them.
But mostly they feel "video gamey" since it's rare to have one where the constraint doesn't feel as if its there mostly "because".
Because the cold harsh truth is that any intelligent gamer sees through the "excitement" of the 8 encounter workday, and simply stops his day when running low on resources.
Besides, and people are coming back to this over and over again: any 8 encounter day must, per definition, be overwhelmingly boring, since any given fight can't be very challenging.
Challenging to me means "will we win". Not "will we win without Bob spending a hit die?".
We're getting to the point where I can't get through to you. I'm not criticizing you. I'm criticizing the way you stubbornly defend the game's lacks and wants, and the way you credit the game for your own effort!
Yes, I'm happy for you that you make the game work so well with your hard work.
No, the game does not deserve credit for that. You do.
The game deserves criticism for leaving so much of its "assumptions" and "expectations" squarely in the lap of us DMs.
The reality is that not all DMs are prepared to spend that much time on their adventures.
They don't even bother to add the work you do to published adventures, ffs!
That's what I mean when I tell you that "just do 6-8" is such
dishonest advice. If you were to say "yeah, I know, the game is lacking in several respects, but I make it work through long hours, and for me it's worth it" then I could respect that and would not be having this conversation with you. Then I'd simply lift my hat at you and bid you a good day.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Possibly not in the absolute sense you seem to be implying. It hasn't been broadly acknowledged, and probably can't be said for sure until the end of the run, but 5e probably shakes out into Tiers much like 3.5 did at the end. Full neo-Vancian casters (and perhaps even the Bard) in Tier 1, other full casters in Tier 2, and so on. A big difference is that no class is intentionally PC-inadequate (like the 3e Commoner) as to require a Tier 6, nor, arguably, quite so badly botched as to fall into Tier 5.
If you don't want to put a lot of thought or effort or 'DM force' into making the game into what you want, you can 'just' run it straight, and that is, assuming a fairly diverse party and not wanting to have to worry about imposing balance any more than absolutely necessary, indeed, the 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short-rest "Day." Probably in a directive ('railroad'), tailored-challenge style. Because it's comparatively easy on the DM. You plug in numbers, set up your encounters in a line, and let the players chew through it. Even that takes some work, but if you want more from the game, you need to put more into it.
The other way to run 5e relatively care-free, or at least prep-free, is not to bother with encounter guidelines or much of anything else, and just spin the descriptions of the world out as the players explore it, and rule on each action as it comes, even down to actual combat. It's two steps away from freestyle RP, but it can work if it fits your style, and only requires effort from the DM at the table, no prep. Maybe that's unrealistic for most DMs, I just mention it because I've done it a lot over the years, and in systems much less well-suited to it (which really makes me appreciate 5e).
You're not a lone, a lot of folks never had a problem with it. In either sense.
They could put some pressure on the party. Back in the day, it seems like there were always plenty of assumptions/fears that justified clearing as much as possible before retreating from the dungeon. Traps could re-set, intelligent monsters could recruit re-enforcements, repair/strengthen defenses, hide or move their treasure, etc, new monsters could wander in, access to sections of the dungeon could collapse, rival adventurers could step in and clean the place while you were gone. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things. Heck, even the first/longest 3e campaign I was in (full run, from 3.0 release to after 4e had hit the shelves, 1st-14th) tended towards some of those factors, especially with the dungeon/treasure-hunting scenarios. There was even a rival adventuring party, made up of the 3e iconics, that we'd sometimes be racing against, the rivalry between Tordek and our Dwarven Cleric, Schralk was particularly pronounced (they were from rival clans or something).
That fair, as far as perceived player incentives are concerned. You get a lot, mechanically, for resting, and nothing for pressing on (those incentives all have to come from the story elements or environment or situation, no action-points or item-dailies from milestones or anything like that). I suppose there could be a house rule that facing a second or subsequent encounter without a rest in between earns inspiration (we bad!), but that'd undercut the RP-carrot point of inspiration (hmm, since I'm not much for DM-moderated RP incentives, I just might do that).
I suppose a compromise between shorter short-rests and hour-long short rests might be to have short rests be automatic after each encounter, or relatively short (minutes) but require at least an hour between short rests...?
Doesn't the DMG have DMing advice, a selection of 'modules,' and the like? (I haven't actually read a DMG cover-to-cover looking for DM advice since 1e, they're just reference books to me, these days, and not heavily used ones.)
A number of 5e's goals - being D&D for everyone who's ever loved D&D, re-uniting the fan-base, supporting more varied play styles, evoking classic feel, DM Empowerment - all point to the target audience being relatively experienced players & DMs. Particularly DMs. If not experienced, at least enthusiastic to be coming back to D&D.
I've seen plenty of those, at 1st level. Of course, I run 1st level a lot, since I run intro games at cons and the odd launch event, more than I run whole seasons.
In-combat healing is critical to get allies up and back into the fight, hopefully with enough hps that they won't be one-shot-killed. Even in just the Standard game, without feats, it's easy enough to come by: 4 or 5 classes have healing spells on their lists, and there's a cantrip that auto-stabilizes, and medicine rolls to stabilize aren't exactly difficult, even untrained. Unless you're running an unusual 'godless' campaign that lacks Clerics/Druids/Paladins, it seems unlikely you'd ever have no useful in-combat healing (you'd have to have be using no casters, at all, and not using feats, and restricting access to even common items like potions, for it to be really unavoidable).
My question, "what are you going to do about it" was honestly meant. What are you doing to sort this out? Tweeting D&D designers might be a good start, but not with simple complaints. I'm thinking something along the lines of "I've noticed X issue, would you consider doing Y?" which could be as simple as an Unearthed Arcana series or as significant as a new set of game rules. Or "Why don't published modules X, Y, and Z seem to support the 6-8 encounter paradigm?"
I only rarely look at published adventures so my experience in this regard is not going to help you much. For what it's worth, I believe you that not every published adventure adheres to the 6-8 encounter day. I imagine some parts do and some parts don't, but I can't personally speak to that.
Let me stop you right there. What you've made here is a subjective assessment and a declaration of your own preferences. Some people share your preferences and some people don't, so it isn't a universal thing that needs fixing. It may simply be place where the designers goals do not align with your own. In my own experience, tough fights are a place where the players dig deep and get inventive. Easier fights are ones where the players revel in the awesome power of the characters. In my own opinion, they both have their place.
Yes, the game has issues and some rules that are frustrating to work with. These days I'm kind of annoyed with skill checks and DCs, and, when I have looked to published adventures for help I haven't found consistency there. But I still have fun playing. My players have fun playing. If an apparent issue with the rules comes up, we ignore it
When issues with the rules come up more than once or twice, well then we devote some thought and time to ways to fixing the issues and to me that time and effort is worth it.**This is a paraphrase of what you said you'd like to hear, but it's sincerely intended.
The_Furious_Puffin
First Post
Part of the problem with this discussion is I suspect we don't have a common reference point. My touchstones for this discussion for what I consider 'good support' include 4E's encounter design and monster balancing and something like 'Stars without number' for what I consider good advice and support in actually running a sandbox game. The system for generating and operating a sandbox (the faction stuff, including the method for enabling PCs to start and operate a faction) is great. Helps run a dynamic world that has a life of its own around the PCs and also supports high level play by giving the PCs a system to interact with.
The 5E DMG absolutely includes a a DMing advice section, and a few optional rules for tweaking the game but I feel it's a bit generic and doesn't approach Stars without Number. Stars without number is free, and is worth a read imho if you like sandbox games.
Right - so I need less advice and more tools, which the DMG/5E just does not have. I'm going to keep banging on about Stars without Number here. That's GM support imho.
Yeah it stops after level 2 - the game doesn't really work at level 1-2 imho you're best just to skip to 3.
The spell that really matters for in combat healing is healing word would be my observation - works at range, bonus action. Classes without that (or one of the equivalents) have significantly less access to in combat healing because you have to move to the downed character and that may not be possible.
I use a modified version that I feel better preserves drama while increasing play speed, but I both play and run games. The large majority of those deaths are in games I've played in rather than DMed.
The 3.5E tiering is about 'can you break the game, can you do multiple things, can you do one thing, can you do anything' which is different from a 'best class.' It seems likely that Bards are the best class due to a relatively unrestricted spell selection and the ability to poach other classes stuff.
The level of the game also impacts this.
GameOgre
Adventurer
"Because the cold harsh truth is that any intelligent gamer sees through the "excitement" of the 8 encounter workday, and simply stops his day when running low on resources."
What you fail to understand is that the player doesn't decide when those resources come back. The DM does.
So if the player stops after one easy encounter and says I rest eight hours he can do that. However it is totally up to you if he regains ANY resources.
In other words unless he has put in the encounters he isn't regaining jack! No hit points back, no class powers nothing, no spells NOTHING.
Maybe they are traveling and have one encounter per day. That means after at least two days and two encounters they can get in a short rest and receive the rewards of doing so.
What you fail to understand is that the player doesn't decide when those resources come back. The DM does.
So if the player stops after one easy encounter and says I rest eight hours he can do that. However it is totally up to you if he regains ANY resources.
In other words unless he has put in the encounters he isn't regaining jack! No hit points back, no class powers nothing, no spells NOTHING.
Maybe they are traveling and have one encounter per day. That means after at least two days and two encounters they can get in a short rest and receive the rewards of doing so.
Flamestrike
Legend
Dude - you're the DM. If you dont set 8 encounter Adventuring days then they dont happen.
Its like you saying 'Ive created and played in several adventures and not one of them featured goblins, so therefore goblins dont exist.'
Its spurious reasoning at best.
Exactly.
Player; 'Haha DM - I see through your 6-8 encounter ruse and nova encounter 1 then fall back to rest. Come at me bro!'
DM: [rolls some dice, ignoring the result] OK, well as you move to where you plan on resting, you see another wave of Orcs bigger than the last...
or:
DM: Ok then. The princess dies as you all rest. Adventure over, you all failed and get a bad reputation as unreliable adventurers. Her death weighs on your souls, and your employer wants nothing more to do with you. Paladin - you feel a tugging at your conscience as if you could have done more. The guilt wracks you. Also none of you get paid. Thats (adds up) 150xp each. At this rate, you should all advance a level after a year or two of play. Its a pity too, becuase that BBEG had a dagger +2 that the rogue would have loved. Thats gone for good. You spend the next month in game in downtime seeing as no-one wants to hire you anymore. People turn their backs to you on the street. We can pick up next week seeing as you clearly dont want to engage on the adventure I had planned. Now, seeing as the adventure is over for today, who wants to watch a torrent of the new Star Wars movie for the rest of the afternoon?
or:
DM: Its too dangerous to rest here. So, No.
or:
DM: Look mate, I've explained to you repeatedly as a player and friend that my job as DM is to set challenging and fun encounters for the party to engage in, and you consistently work against the social contract of the game to undermine this with your metagame rubbish. There is the door - dont let it hit you on the way out.
These all work.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
That's a fine house rule. I wish the PHB had said so.
Similar Threads
