D&D 5E 6-8 encounters/day - how common is this?

[Wuzzard]

What I see happening is 1-3 encounters per day, and on some rare occasions more, but if given the choice PCs will choose to rest. No player is thinking about class balance when their cleric is out of healing. It is always the rational choice for players and PCs to rest and recover resources unless story constraints dictate otherwise. So some epic romp through the caves of madness to save the kingdom before the stroke of midnight, yes players will choose to push onward even when depleted of key resources like healing, but it is often a struggle and a grind. I've never met a player IRL that loved to prove their prowess with the resource management so much that the drain of a long slog ever seemed worth it in the net-fun department. YMMV. So you don't find adventures packed with long slogs, especially ones you design yourself for your own players, because the last one just seemed to wipe everyone out. (Unless, of course, long drawn out miniature combats campaigns are your thing.)

So my point is, getting to 6-8 encounters per day (with appropriate resource drain to effectively balance classes) in a way that is not some long slog that eventually drives your players away is such a difficult task for DMs it is unlikely to be a part of the game you play, and if it is then it is unlikely to be done well. (Except for present company of course, since you guys and gals are awesome DMs, so no slights intended.)

One interesting point to mull over is that official Adventure League games (encounters and expeditions) are set up to be played in single sessions. Everybody always starts with full resources and the adventures are played in 1-4 hours typically, so how many encounters can their really be? As for published adventure paths in Adenture League, there might be longer forays designed into specific chapters, but due to real world constrains about how Adventure League works, many of your actual players may be different from session to session, as players drop in and out or get seated at different tables, and I've never seen someone drop-in with a PC with less than full resources. So class balance via resource management is something that just doesn't happen in the official games that are otherwise terribly concerned with fairness.

TL;DR class balance via long workdays is something that will only happen if you and your DM actively work to make it so; and you are probably not going like the result.

 

[Ancalagon]

My one advice would be to make sure your adventures don't all follow the same formula. If the wizard knows your adventure is 3 encounters and that the last encounter is always the hardest, then that is a problem because he will just unload in the third encounter. But maybe an adventure has 4 encounters or maybe one adventure the first is the hardest instead of the last. This will change your players mindset from figuring out how to ration out their dailies over a 3 encounter day, to instead trying to make sure they spend exactly what they need, which solves most of the problems of shorter adventuring days and will still make fighters and rogues feel good since they don't have to try to figure that out.

*excellent* point. And if encounter 3 is "the hardest", suddenly that lame goblin ambush (encounter 4) on the way back to camp isn't so lame anymore...

TL;DR class balance via long workdays is something that will only happen if you and your DM actively work to make it so; and you are probably not going like the result.

This is my impression. I guess the question is, is it a real issue?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Im with ya. Quality over Quantity.

Are the two actually opposed? Is it truly a zero-sum game?

And are you certain that a reduction in quantity never results in a reduction in quality as well?

The fear of running fewer more interesting and important encounters is that classes who burn out quickly (paladins, wizards, etc) will outperform classes that don't (rogues, fighters, etc.) In my experience, averaging about 3 encounters each adventure in my games, that hasn't actually been a problem.

My one advice would be to make sure your adventures don't all follow the same formula. If the wizard knows your adventure is 3 encounters and that the last encounter is always the hardest, then that is a problem because he will just unload in the third encounter. But maybe an adventure has 4 encounters or maybe one adventure the first is the hardest instead of the last. This will change your players mindset from figuring out how to ration out their dailies over a 3 encounter day, to instead trying to make sure they spend exactly what they need, which solves most of the problems of shorter adventuring days and will still make fighters and rogues feel good since they don't have to try to figure that out.

While normally I am (very) skeptical of advice that recommends totally disregarding the expected rest-ratio (2-3 short :: 1 long) and long-rest/encounter ratio (6-8 enc :: 1 long), this is a great point. Part of the advantage of having a smaller number of big, powerful, chunky bits to throw at baddies lies in how well you can "game the system" (or maybe "play the odds" is a better, less-accusatory way of putting it): strategic usage is always a force multiplier, and when you have more baseline force to work with, the effect is commensurately larger. Leveraging the party's ignorance against them reduces this advantage.

If you're going to ignore the game's advice about how many fights to have, ABSOLUTELY do as Dormouse suggests. Keep your players guessing. A climate of uncertainty and, if not paranoia, then at least "abundance of caution" at least gives psychological value to "safe(r) investments."

This is my impression. I guess the question is, is it a real issue?

Well, mathematically, yeah it is. Fighters need their 3x-4x Action Surge a day, and Barbarians need a solid number of combat rounds, to keep up with a Paladin's Smiting ability. Even if combats end in two rounds (which still sounds completely ridiculous to me, no matter how much people insist it is the case), Divine Smite is flexible enough because of variable slot size that you can strategize with it pretty well.

Similarly, is a Warlock who casts only 4 spells at (say) fourth spell level really keeping up with a Wizard who can cast 2-3 fourth-level spells (due to Arcane Recovery) and 3 each of every lower spell level (well, 4 first-level)?

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

I've been playing since the public play-test, and not a single session went over three encounters. And, more often than not, all of those encounters didn't utilize expendable resources. The classes that depend on short rest renewal seem to play much differently than probably intended, in my experience. Though, note, that in combat situations the adversaries are pumped up quite a bit to make so few encounters render at least one challenging fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Are the two actually opposed? Is it truly a zero-sum game?

Quite the opposite. The Encounter guidelines depend on that 6-8 encounter benchmark, so the closer you stick to it, the better the quality of the encounters will be. Fewer encounters will be lower quality. So too would be 10+ encounter days, if they ever happened...

If you're going to ignore the game's advice about how many fights to have, ABSOLUTELY do as Dormouse suggests. Keep your players guessing. A climate of uncertainty and, if not paranoia, then at least "abundance of caution" at least gives psychological value to "safe(r) investments."

It's the sort of advice we used to give people complaining about class imbalance in 3.5 - yes, longer days if you can make it happen, but also far less-predictable days. A 'living world' approach it's sometimes called, or 'gotchyas' if we want to be cynical (and I certainly go there at times).

Similarly, is a Warlock who casts only 4 spells at (say) fourth spell level really keeping up with a Wizard who can cast 2-3 fourth-level spells (due to Arcane Recovery) and 3 each of every lower spell level (well, 4 first-level)?

Obviously not, at least, not on that one metric, alone. But, if the Warlock blows spells aggressively in expectation of a rest in 2 or 3 encounters, while the Wizard uses his sparingly for fear of an 8+ encounter day, then it might not be so far off...

 

[Flamestrike]

Hello

So as I explore the (new to me) 5e rules and read about it here, I see several reference to the "6-8 encounters per adventuring day". Because of the short vs long rest powers economy, the number of encounters per day becomes quite important, as they allow the "short-rest powered" classes to shine.

But how many people do this actually?

I do. When I design my adventures during the week for my group, I always turn my mind to a time limit to the adventure, with penalties for failure/ rewards for success attached. I enforce the 6-8 medium to hard encounter/ 2 short rest per long rest paradigm for around 50 percent of my planned encounters.

For the other 50 percent of the time, it varies between shorter adventuring days (wilderness encounters mainly) and the rareer longer adventuring day.

When you have around 50 percent of your adventuring days running at the 6-8/ 2 short rest mark, it becomes a self regulating system. Your Players naturally conserve resources around this default, even on the shorter days. Class balance and encounter difficulty is maintained.

I often find DMs that dont turn their minds to the 6-8 expectation are also the first ones who complain about class balance being off and encounters being too easy.

I've gamed (both as a PC and a GM) in a number of groups and a number of systems in my 25 year gaming "career" and in almost every group that high number of encounters was the exception, not the rule.

I hear this a lot but I dont get it. I cant think of a single dungeon where less than six encounters before pulling back and resting overnight was the norm.

Think of Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil or Against the Giants. If your party was only clearing two or three rooms and then pulling back to sleep overnight, then we played those adventures very differently indeed.

Pick up a module with a dungeon and pre-set encounters (i.e pretty much all of them). Now trace a path through the dungeon, counting how many rooms with encounters (traps, monsters, riddles, puzzles etc) the party encounter. Stop when you reach three. Now do it again, stopping when you reach 6-8. That (the 6-8 spot) is usually enough encoutners to deal with a single level of a dungeon in one adventuring day.

Most of us found it more fun to have less fights, but have the fights matter more - big exciting battles, not a series of ho-hum scraps with goblins and brigands. (It is possible to have exciting battles with goblins or brigands mind you).

Only having a single fight per day, but dialing up the difficulty to compensate, doesnt actually compensate for anything. You're just encouraging nova tactics, reinforcing the 5 minute adventuring day, and punishing those classes that already suffer during shorter adventuring days (Fighters, Monks, Warlocks) more, while additionally rewarding those that benefit from the 5 mintute nova strike AD (Casters, Barbarians, Paladins).

Its important to note that an adventuring day is not the same thing as a game session. This is where the real cognative dissonace kicks in for most DMs - seeing as most sessions get 1-3 encounters per session, and a natural end point is for a long rest, this is where the line is usually drawn.

If you only get 1-3 encounters per game session, have your short rests happen at the end of a session, and your long rests happen at the end of every third session.

So is it just me, or are other people also tossing this guidance to the side?

Its common enough. The reasons seem to me to be (more often than not) to boil down to lazy DMing. DMs either cant be bothered placing a time limit to frame their adventures, run out of ideas how to do so unobsctructively after doing so a few times, or dont understand the metagame reasons for the 6-8 paradigm, or similar.

It does make the art of designing adventures and encounters more difficult in that you have an extra element (naturally framing the encounters within the context of the 6-8/2 AD) to contend with when you sit down duing the week to stat up your next adventure for the weekend. This has to be done as unobtrusively as possible, and many DMs simply dont have the skill (or the inclination) to do this.

 

[Flamestrike]

Quite the opposite. The Encounter guidelines depend on that 6-8 encounter benchmark, so the closer you stick to it, the better the quality of the encounters will be.

So many DMs dont get this.

I hear so many DMs complain that 5E's encoutners are 'boring and easy'. When I ask these blokes 'Do you stick to the 6-8 reasonably frequently?'' the response is always (invariably): No.

These are also the same guys that complain about the fighter, warlock and monk being weak.

It's the sort of advice we used to give people complaining about class imbalance in 3.5 - yes, longer days if you can make it happen, but also far less-predictable days. A 'living world' approach it's sometimes called, or 'gotchyas' if we want to be cynical (and I certainly go there at times).

In a game like DnD which is (at its core) entirely a resource management game, policing the AD (resource management by the players) is a vital skill for a DM to have. Always has been, always will be.

Its our job as DMs to challenge the players, maintain class balance, ensure every player and character has a chance to shine, and to design encounters. If you dont police the adventuring day, youre failing at all of these tasks.

I would probably walk out of a game that only every gave me 1-3 encounters per long rest as a baseline. Or I would only ever play a Wizard.

Obviously not, at least, not on that one metric, alone. But, if the Warlock blows spells aggressively in expectation of a rest in 2 or 3 encounters, while the Wizard uses his sparingly for fear of an 8+ encounter day, then it might not be so far off...

Exactly.

I came up with an idea in a seperate thread, but if you want to throw routine single encounter AD's at your party, as a rough guide simply triple the uses of all short rest dependent abilities and make them long rest dependent.

A BM Fighter (for example) 3 gets 3 second winds per long rest, 3 action surges and 12 superiority dice. A Moon druid gets 6 wild shapes per day. A Bladesinger gets 6 blade songs per day. Etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

I do. When I design my adventures during the week for my group, I always turn my mind to a time limit to the adventure, with penalties for failure/ rewards for success attached. I enforce the 6-8 medium to hard encounter/ 2 short rest per long rest paradigm for around 50 percent of my planned encounters.

For the other 50 percent of the time, it varies between shorter adventuring days (wilderness encounters mainly) and the rareer longer adventuring day.

When you have around 50 percent of your adventuring days running at the 6-8/ 2 short rest mark, it becomes a self regulating system. Your Players naturally conserve resources around this default, even on the shorter days. Class balance and encounter difficulty is maintained.

I often find DMs that dont turn their minds to the 6-8 expectation are also the first ones who complain about class balance being off and encounters being too easy.



I hear this a lot but I dont get it. I cant think of a single dungeon where less than six encounters before pulling back and resting overnight was the norm.

Think of Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil or Against the Giants. If your party was only clearing two or three rooms and then pulling back to sleep overnight, then we played those adventures very differently indeed.

Pick up a module with a dungeon and pre-set encounters (i.e pretty much all of them). Now trace a path through the dungeon, counting how many rooms with encounters (traps, monsters, riddles, puzzles etc) the party encounter. Stop when you reach three. Now do it again, stopping when you reach 6-8. That (the 6-8 spot) is usually enough encoutners to deal with a single level of a dungeon in one adventuring day.



Only having a single fight per day, but dialing up the difficulty to compensate, doesnt actually compensate for anything. You're just encouraging nova tactics, reinforcing the 5 minute adventuring day, and punishing those classes that already suffer during shorter adventuring days (Fighters, Monks, Warlocks) more, while additionally rewarding those that benefit from the 5 mintute nova strike AD (Casters, Barbarians, Paladins).

Its important to note that an adventuring day is not the same thing as a game session. This is where the real cognative dissonace kicks in for most DMs - seeing as most sessions get 1-3 encounters per session, and a natural end point is for a long rest, this is where the line is usually drawn.

If you only get 1-3 encounters per game session, have your short rests happen at the end of a session, and your long rests happen at the end of every third session.



Its common enough. The reasons seem to me to be (more often than not) to boil down to lazy DMing. DMs either cant be bothered placing a time limit to frame their adventures, run out of ideas how to do so unobsctructively after doing so a few times, or dont understand the metagame reasons for the 6-8 paradigm, or similar.

It does make the art of designing adventures and encounters more difficult in that you have an extra element (naturally framing the encounters within the context of the 6-8/2 AD) to contend with when you sit down duing the week to stat up your next adventure for the weekend. This has to be done as unobtrusively as possible, and many DMs simply dont have the skill (or the inclination) to do this.

THats because cpmbat is fast and simple in those games. I have run a few of the classics in ecent years using AD&D/BECMI and clones and in a 4 hour sesison you can.

Have 15-20 encounters with around 1/4rd being combat (5-7 fights)

And still have time for RP and several of those encounters might be RP.

5E combat is a lot quicker than 4E, a bit quicker than 3E (not by much it seems) and slower than OSR type games. The only way I can squeeze in 6-8 encounters is in something like a dungeon crawl with most of the session devoted to it. Even then 6-8 encounters doesn;t matter to much after level 3 or 4 if you run it RAW. When 5E 1st landed I ran it very close to RAW and started the encounters at hard and the 6th and 7th encounters we at deadly+ (often over the xp budget).

After 5E I would say the rules do not work at all. THe removal of save or dies for the most part has turned it into a hp slog grind. May not help or group almost always has the healer feat though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Quite the opposite. The Encounter guidelines depend on that 6-8 encounter benchmark, so the closer you stick to it, the better the quality of the encounters will be. Fewer encounters will be lower quality. So too would be 10+ encounter days, if they ever happened...

Well, that was sort of my point. The questions were semi-rhetorical, in that they danced around the real question: Does a reduction in quantity guarantee an increase in quality? Even if we ignore obvious edge cases (like reducing quantity all the way to zero), I think this is an unquestioned assumption a lot of people make, and shouldn't.

It's the sort of advice we used to give people complaining about class imbalance in 3.5 - yes, longer days if you can make it happen, but also far less-predictable days. A 'living world' approach it's sometimes called, or 'gotchyas' if we want to be cynical (and I certainly go there at times).

I'm not even sure that either of those things needs to apply per se. "Living world" implies that things are adapting around the players' choices; the analogy that comes to mind is the Borg "adapting" to Federation tech, Starfleet officers crafting a new tactic or piece of tech, and the Borg then re-adapting, lather/rinse/repeat ad nauseam. And "gotchas" implies that there's some kind of deception or rug-pulling going on, which I don't think is at all necessary for any game (noting, as I have before, that not sharing every fact even in the long-term is not the same as intentionally deceiving).

It's more a matter of averting the human tendency to fall into patterns or cycles. Change it up. If you like to have about 4 combats per long rest, roll a die--1 is -1, 6 is +1, and everything else is 0. Roll a second die to determine which combat will be the hardest of the day. That sort of thing. By intentionally averting the usual paradigm, you can achieve the same result (players cannot reliably plan on particular circumstances) without resorting to "underhanded" tactics or DM-player arms races.

Obviously not, at least, not on that one metric, alone. But, if the Warlock blows spells aggressively in expectation of a rest in 2 or 3 encounters, while the Wizard uses his sparingly for fear of an 8+ encounter day, then it might not be so far off...

Well, maybe I'm being overly skeptical (again), but a case that pushes the Warlock to blow spells aggressively while the Wizard waits in fear and never spends them, consistently, seems...unstable, I guess? The Warlock is going to have a lot of days where the latter half is spent doing nothing at all (and is going to be really hurting on long days if rests are hard to come by), and the Wizard is going to be keenly aware that day after day passes with most of her spell list unspent. Do typical players not reflect on that very much?

 

[Flamestrike]

THats because cpmbat is fast and simple in those games. I have run a few of the classics in ecent years using AD&D/BECMI and clones and in a 4 hour sesison you can.

Have 15-20 encounters with around 1/4rd being combat (5-7 fights)

And still have time for RP and several of those encounters might be RP.

5E combat is a lot quicker than 4E, a bit quicker than 3E (not by much it seems) and slower than OSR type games. The only way I can squeeze in 6-8 encounters is in something like a dungeon crawl with most of the session devoted to it. Even then 6-8 encounters doesn;t matter to much after level 3 or 4 if you run it RAW. When 5E 1st landed I ran it very close to RAW and started the encounters at hard and the 6th and 7th encounters we at deadly+ (often over the xp budget).

After 5E I would say the rules do not work at all. THe removal of save or dies for the most part has turned it into a hp slog grind. May not help or group almost always has the healer feat though.

Again; you're conflating 6-8 encounters per long rest with 6-8 encounters per game session.

And a 5E combat shouldnt take more than 15-20 minutes to run anyways. Over a 5-6 hour session, I can easily average 7 encounters.