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

[ThirdWizard]

There's no need to map long rests to the end of sessions.

I don't know about that. I particularly dislike taking a 2 week break and then coming back mid-dungeon having to look up what spells are still available, how many hit points you have left, whether or not you used your x/day abilities, etc and hoping that you recorded everything perfectly. Plus, my players have enough trouble remembering what they did two weeks ago. To be mid-dungeon seems like it's asking a lot, especially when something in room #8 may be intricately tied to what they did in Room #3.

 

[Lehrbuch]

I don't know about that. I particularly dislike taking a 2 week break and then coming back mid-dungeon having to look up what spells are still available, how many hit points you have left, whether or not you used your x/day abilities, etc and hoping that you recorded everything perfectly. Plus, my players have enough trouble remembering what they did two weeks ago...

That's why you (the DM) should begin the session with a brief "Previously on..." monologue and explicitly tell the players stuff that you want them to remember from the previous session(s).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think the 6-8 encounters/day is an unrealistic guide, and is a fundamental flaw of 5e. if you dont use 6-8, wont the daily classes be too strong? Eg: too much paladin smite and wizard fireballs going on?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't know about that. I particularly dislike taking a 2 week break and then coming back mid-dungeon having to look up what spells are still available, how many hit points you have left, whether or not you used your x/day abilities, etc and hoping that you recorded everything perfectly. Plus, my players have enough trouble remembering what they did two weeks ago. To be mid-dungeon seems like it's asking a lot, especially when something in room #8 may be intricately tied to what they did in Room #3.

That you dislike a thing does not make that thing impossible, nor even make it not something that other people do on a regular basis.

Of course, it's really just a case of which you prefer to do between adhering to some session structure that negates the possibility of more than 1 session passing between rests, and getting in the practice of making notes to alleviate all the problems you mention.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know about that. I particularly dislike taking a 2 week break and then coming back mid-dungeon having to look up what spells are still available, how many hit points you have left, whether or not you used your x/day abilities, etc and hoping that you recorded everything perfectly.

Oh, I can see how it's convenient to just re-set between sessions (and 5e's fast combat does mean you could squeeze 6 encounters into a session if it's not too short). But it's also not that hard to keep up with resources on your character sheet. And, there's always the option of playing a class with less resource-tracking, if it gets bothersome. That's why 5e has the Champion, for instance. Record Hp total, Action Surge, Second Wind, you're good to go next session. Rogues (other than AT) also don't have much rest-recharge stuff to keep a record of, and Barbarians not much more than just Rages/day.

Another option, rather like using Tiers constructively in 3.5, would be to just assure that the party is either daily-heavy or short-rest heavy, rather than a mix. Then only encounter difficulty gets mucked up by 'short' days (something the DM should be able to cope with), but everyone gets to go nova when they know it's a short day, or use resources sparingly when they expect a longer one.

Plus, my players have enough trouble remembering what they did two weeks ago. To be mid-dungeon seems like it's asking a lot, especially when something in room #8 may be intricately tied to what they did in Room #3.

There have been some really, really large dungeons published over the years, ending a session (a hole series of sessions, even) mid-dungeon seems like it'd be expected, at least some of the time.

I think the 6-8 encounters/day is an unrealistic guide, and is a fundamental flaw of 5e.

It's not a flaw, more just a parameter.

if you dont use 6-8, wont the daily classes be too strong? Eg: too much paladin smite and wizard fireballs going on?

Well, yes, of course (though, as has been pointed out, above, you can achieve similar results via uncertainty without actually sticking slavishly to those guidelines). There have always similar issues in 3.5 & earlier editions, too. It's just that 5e gives you clear guidance ("crystal clear guidance," as promised in an L&L during the playtest) on how many encounters/day the design team expects, rather than leaving you to figure it out for yourself...

...of course, it still helps to figure it out for yourself, because it can vary with the level of system mastery and the styles of play involved...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you dont use 6-8, wont the daily classes be too strong? Eg: too much paladin smite and wizard fireballs going on?

No. Or at least not necessarily.

I don't adhere to 6-8 encounters/day. My players know that I don't, but they also know that I don't adhere to some other specific number of encounters per day. They know that what I do is place what obstacles make narrative sense to me between their characters and the goals their characters wish to accomplish, and make the world appear to ebb and flow around and outside of what is in front of the party - which in the case of encounters per day means that they could have any number of encounters and that those encounters can be any difficulty (including entirely impossible to defeat in one or more methods, i.e. not being able to win a stand-up fight with an encountered creature like not being able to kill off that hobgoblin general and his elite riders, or not being able to socially overcome another creature like not being able to talk it out with that owlbear that wants to eat you).

The natural effect of this knowledge is that the players play their characters as cautious; they hold back resources for potential later use even in situations where it is "probably unlikely" that it is needed. Where other groups do things like unload everything they've got as fast as they can because "this is probably the only encounter today because we are traveling", my group spends resources in that encounter as if it is the first of many because they know only that there is no guarantee that it isn't.

 

[Xeviat]

I go for 3 to 4 very hard encounters per day (twice the XP of standard encounters). They take longer, require more resources, but as long as they still get 2 short rests per 1 long rest, things work out.

Standard difficulty combat encounters are simply too easy for my group.

 

[Blue]

The 6-8 combats and the classes balanced between daily use, short rest use, and unlimited/at-will usage is one of my biggest issues with 5e. And I'm a large 5e fan. But with playing 3 hours in an evening with lots of RP it requires that any day with combats now is going to be several sessions long in order to balance the number of combats. And realistically, none of the DMs I play with bother.

Mechanically I like the 13th Age system better, but it requires some suspension of disbelief just like the long/short rest options in the DMG, because it uncouples sleeping from regaining all resources.

In 13th Age, resources are at-will (like swinging a sword, or some spells - including ones at higher level than 5e cantrips), per-encounter, or come back at a full heal-up. A full heal-up occurs about once ever 4 combats, though the DM can give it more frequently if the combats are tougher, and the player can take it more frequently but with a campaign setback*.

This means that you could have a three week trip across a savanna that has four encounters total, and that's one full heal-up. It doesn't matter that it took place over an extended period of time, which in standard 5e would greatly favor the classes with lots of daily resources like most casters. I'd describe the trip as biting mosquitoes, bad water and constant threats of beast attack.

On the other hand, if you're elbows deep in a Living Dungeon plowing through encounters, you might get a full heal-up more than once in the same 24 hour period.

This puts to rest the whole 15 minute adventuring day.

Like I mentioned, the DM does have a little more work to keep integrity. Perhaps in the Living Dungeon after the fourth encounter you find a fountain that magically refreshes you when you drink, to keep verisimilitude. It's the same issues that the DMG short/long rest variants have in making it a noticeable milestone. (And, of course, it also gives the DM the chance to occasionally pull out "sorry, timer is ticking and no full heal-up until after you escape the erupting volcano, but that's more powerful for it's rarity.)

Oh, I put a * next to setback. Part of the rules (not just social contract) is that players get a full heal-up sooner, as well as other things like a good retreat if they get in over their heads - but at the cost of a campaign set-back. So maybe they want to rest until sun-up and get an early full heal-up before going after the kidnapped villagers in the vampire nest. But they may find that their delay has let them turn the farmer's daughter into a vamp.

 

[Sunseeker]

I go for 3 to 4 very hard encounters per day (twice the XP of standard encounters). They take longer, require more resources, but as long as they still get 2 short rests per 1 long rest, things work out.

Standard difficulty combat encounters are simply too easy for my group.

Agreed, this is what I usually do as well. Sometimes only 2-3 REALLY REALLY hard encounters. They're more enjoyable on both sides, but the same reasoning applies, 2 short rests per one long rest. I mean if you're going to 6-8 encounters but 2-3 of them are "running encounters" ie: no more than 5 min between fights then really all you're doing is running 3-4 fights, just without all the enemies ganging up on the party at the same time.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The 6-8 combats and the classes balanced between daily use, short rest use, and unlimited/at-will usage is one of my biggest issues with 5e. And I'm a large 5e fan. But with playing 3 hours in an evening with lots of RP it requires that any day with combats now is going to be several sessions long in order to balance the number of combats. And realistically, none of the DMs I play with bother.

Mechanically I like the 13th Age system better, but it requires some suspension of disbelief just like the long/short rest options in the DMG, because it uncouples sleeping from regaining all resources.

In 13th Age, resources are at-will (like swinging a sword, or some spells - including ones at higher level than 5e cantrips), per-encounter, or come back at a full heal-up. A full heal-up occurs about once ever 4 combats, though the DM can give it more frequently if the combats are tougher, and the player can take it more frequently but with a campaign setback*.

This means that you could have a three week trip across a savanna that has four encounters total, and that's one full heal-up. It doesn't matter that it took place over an extended period of time, which in standard 5e would greatly favor the classes with lots of daily resources like most casters. I'd describe the trip as biting mosquitoes, bad water and constant threats of beast attack.

On the other hand, if you're elbows deep in a Living Dungeon plowing through encounters, you might get a full heal-up more than once in the same 24 hour period.

This puts to rest the whole 15 minute adventuring day.

Like I mentioned, the DM does have a little more work to keep integrity. Perhaps in the Living Dungeon after the fourth encounter you find a fountain that magically refreshes you when you drink, to keep verisimilitude. It's the same issues that the DMG short/long rest variants have in making it a noticeable milestone. (And, of course, it also gives the DM the chance to occasionally pull out "sorry, timer is ticking and no full heal-up until after you escape the erupting volcano, but that's more powerful for it's rarity.)

Oh, I put a * next to setback. Part of the rules (not just social contract) is that players get a full heal-up sooner, as well as other things like a good retreat if they get in over their heads - but at the cost of a campaign set-back. So maybe they want to rest until sun-up and get an early full heal-up before going after the kidnapped villagers in the vampire nest. But they may find that their delay has let them turn the farmer's daughter into a vamp.

Yeah I quite like the 13th Age refresh system, athough as you point out, it is a bit "gamey" and requires more suspension of disbelief.

I think 5e should have had a party wide short rest mechanic, to encourage all PCs to push on with short rests, rather than looking for opportunities to camp and long rest for the daily refresh classes. The mix of short rest and long rest class refresh rates = a mess.