D&D 5E D&D Without Adding House-Rules/Home-brew

[Maxperson]

Can you provide a quote for that?

DMG page 84

"THE ADVENTURING DAY
Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

This is what the game is balanced around. The designed 5e as a resource management game centered around class abilities and hit points. If you run less than the assumed 6-8 encounters and don't make them deadly to compensate, it unbalances the game in favor of the PCs.

So, "expected to have" is elucidating a game design assumption, an expectation, an adventure design recommendation. "Must have" is a rule.

By it's own admission, nothing in the DMG is a rule. They are all guidelines, but they are guidelines that the game is balanced around.

It seems weird to say that a thing the GM doesn't really have control over is a rule. The GM does not control when the PCs choose to advance or retreat, and so cannot really control the number of encounters they have.

I agree. 5e being balanced around the adventuring day in my opinion is worst part of 5e and very poor design. You pretty much have to invoke the once per week long rest variant rule in order to make sure that you can 1) balance the encounters per adventuring day properly, 2) make more narrative sense from an encounter perspective. You don't have to rush all the encounters into a short time period.

 

[James Gasik]

DMG page 84

"THE ADVENTURING DAY
Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

This is what the game is balanced around. The designed 5e as a resource management game centered around class abilities and hit points. If you run less than the assumed 6-8 encounters and don't make them deadly to compensate, it unbalances the game in favor of the PCs.

By it's own admission, nothing in the DMG is a rule. They are all guidelines, but they are guidelines that the game is balanced around.

I agree. 5e being balanced around the adventuring day in my opinion is worst part of 5e and very poor design. You pretty much have to invoke the once per week long rest variant rule in order to make sure that you can 1) balance the encounters per adventuring day properly, 2) make more narrative sense from an encounter perspective. You don't have to rush all the encounters into a short time period.

And yet, WotC violates this rule all the time in their published adventures.

 

[Mort]

I'd try this at least once. I've yet to play a game bound by these restrictions (not even Adventurer's League, really, since they don't come anywhere near to 6-8 encounters).

I don't think the 6-8 encounters is within the paradigm of the OP.

it's merely a recommended pace to keep the party challenged and (in theory) keep the classes somewhat in parity.

It's not a rule, it's a peek behind the design assumptions to aid the DM in his own adventure planning.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet, WotC violates this rule all the time in their published adventures.

WotC violates more DMG guidelines in their adventures than just that. As I said, it was bad design to balance the game around an encounter level that almost no one will play with.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a rule, it's a peek behind the design assumptions to aid the DM in his own adventure planning.

By it's own admission, nothing in the DMG is a rule. They are all guidelines. The rules are in the PHB.

 

[Dausuul]

Sure. It's not far from how I run anyway. I have a curated ban list but otherwise try to stay close to RAW.

The only thing I'd miss would be my house rule on short rests (5 minutes, limit 2/day), and that's only a big deal for warlocks and monks. So those classes would get a "play at your own risk" sticker.

(To be clear, if I had a warlock or monk in the party, I'd try to make sure they got opportunities for short rests, but I'm not sure how well it would work.)

 

[Mort]

By it's own admission, nothing in the DMG is a rule. They are all guidelines. The rules are in the PHB.

Right, which means the 6-8 encounters has nothing at all do do with playing without house rules or homebrew content.

It's a challenge and balancing tool.

 

[OB1]

The adventuring day is RAW. You are expected to have 6-8 combat encounters during the adventuring day. Less if they are harder, more if they are easier.

Eight years into 5e and I still can't believe how misread this section is. First, it's not a rule (and therefore neither RAW or RAI), it's barely a guideline. Nowhere in the Adventuring Day section does it say that DMs should or must create an adventuring day in that way. It only provides a rough estimate of what an AVERAGE party with typical luck SHOULD be able to handle before NEEDING to take a long rest.

I am following RAW and RAI when I create a 1 encounter day, a 3 encounter day, or a 20 encounter day (though the party better try to find ways around some of those when I do if they expect to make it to their objective).

 

[Krachek]

I voted NO and wished that I could have voted NO! Having to encounter 6-8 combat encounters in a 24 hour period would destroy the game for me.

The 6-8 encounters is not a rule, but rather a guideline, hint. There is nothing in the DM that can be considered as a rule or strict method to build encounters.

 

[Oofta]

I voted NO and wished that I could have voted NO! Having to encounter 6-8 combat encounters in a 24 hour period would destroy the game for me.

I assume we're allowed alternate rules such as feats and gritty rest rules. The former is officially optional the latter is and option in the DMG.