Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6837746" data-attributes="member: 996">It wouldn't be fair to just run 6-8 encounter days and expect the game to balance perfectly, no.&nbsp; The DM still has to put effort into it, if that's what he wants.&nbsp; But, it's the theoretical point where those efforts will be at their least herculean, FWIW.Won't argue with that.Even though there's only a handful of sub-classes that limited, people do play them, it's rare to see an all-primary caster table.&nbsp; Then there's the Warlock, which, in spite of it's casting focus, is short-rest recharge.That style is evocative of the classic game, though, and it is meant to (and does) work in 5e.So, 6-8 encounters/day with a short rest after every second encounter or 3-4 tougher encounters/day with a short rest between encounters, is roughly equivalent?&nbsp; Sounds reasonable to me.It's only a mistake if there was a better solution that accomplished all the same things.&nbsp; Remember, 5e was trying to capture classic-game feel.&nbsp; Balance wasn't a priority, classes differentiated by different resources mixes was.&nbsp; If you're going to have long-rest recharge and short-rest recharge and mostly-at-will classes skipping about, feeling neatly differentiated, yet balance them, you're going to need to balance them around some point.&nbsp; I'd argue that 5e doesn't even really try to balance the classes around 6-8 encounters, it just recommends that as the point where the DM might find it easier to impose balance, if he wants to (not every group needs balanced PCs).Very helpful, indeed!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In theory, as Xaviat pointed out, above, it should also theoretically balance with 3-4 harder encounter with a short rest between each of them (2-3 short rests).Bringing down the number of encounters/day any further would mean needing to reduce spell slots, which would start to lose some of the 'classic feel' that's (IMHO) contributed so much to 5e's success.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6837746, member: 996"] It wouldn't be fair to just run 6-8 encounter days and expect the game to balance perfectly, no. The DM still has to put effort into it, if that's what he wants. But, it's the theoretical point where those efforts will be at their least herculean, FWIW. Won't argue with that. Even though there's only a handful of sub-classes that limited, people do play them, it's rare to see an all-primary caster table. Then there's the Warlock, which, in spite of it's casting focus, is short-rest recharge. That style is evocative of the classic game, though, and it is meant to (and does) work in 5e. So, 6-8 encounters/day with a short rest after every second encounter or 3-4 tougher encounters/day with a short rest between encounters, is roughly equivalent? Sounds reasonable to me. It's only a mistake if there was a better solution that accomplished all the same things. Remember, 5e was trying to capture classic-game feel. Balance wasn't a priority, classes differentiated by different resources mixes was. If you're going to have long-rest recharge and short-rest recharge and mostly-at-will classes skipping about, feeling neatly differentiated, yet balance them, you're going to need to balance them around some point. I'd argue that 5e doesn't even really try to balance the classes around 6-8 encounters, it just recommends that as the point where the DM might find it easier to impose balance, if he wants to (not every group needs balanced PCs). Very helpful, indeed! :) In theory, as Xaviat pointed out, above, it should also theoretically balance with 3-4 harder encounter with a short rest between each of them (2-3 short rests). Bringing down the number of encounters/day any further would mean needing to reduce spell slots, which would start to lose some of the 'classic feel' that's (IMHO) contributed so much to 5e's success. [/QUOTE]

Verification