D&D 5E Flamestrike and Stalker0's little adventure

[Asisreo]

I will say to Flamestrike's point.... considering the benefits of the doom clock both to interesting play and mechanical balance, can we as DMs incorporate them more readily in our narratives?

My knee jerk reaction, already presented is.... "lots of my game are not doom clock compatible".

But that is an assumption....and the question becomes, considering the benefits, is it worth it to me as a DM to rethink my narrative a bit, and try to incorporate doom clocks as a stronger narrative construct, to really make an earnest effort to put them in...and then see how well I can get them to fit my narrative.

Probably the simplest example would be the long journey notion. I've already mentioned that narrative issues with having lots of encounters over the journey....and I stick by those.

However, an alternative would be to have the wilderness encounter on the last day of the journey, just as the parties are getting into XYZ location to do the thing. Assuming a time pressure is already set, than this last encounter would add to the stakes, as the players don't have the luxury of a full rest. So now I can add this to the encounters per day, even if it is just a "random wilderness encounter".

When it comes to "doom clocks," they usually make much more narrative sense in the majority of scenarios anyways.

The only time no doom clocks make sense is if the target is simply waiting for the arrival of the party, specifically. Any sort of plots or plans must be carried out eventually so having the antagonist willing to actively engage with anything means a doom clock begins.

Its possible to set up an adventure where the target does nothing, but it would feel like there were hardly any stakes anyways. I mean, why kill "Evil Overlord" if his plans for all eternity was to just do quiet research?

 

[Flamestrike]

For example, say the PCs need to go to 4 islands and get the McGuffin from each, and then confront the big bad in his island lair on a 5th Island. The islands are all 2 days apart. There is time pressure. The islands have 2, 1, 1, 1 encounter set up, with the final island a 6 encounter. Under normal 5e, the Wizard is high powered (OP?) for 4 of the islands and at par for the final island. Under a sanctuary model, the Wizard is way underpowered as she can't rest for 11 encounters.

Why has the DM set it up like this?

Simply making islands 1-4 a few hours apart but not a full 24 hours apart (enabling a short rest between islands 2, 3 and 4, but not a long rest), and then having island 5 a full 2 days apart (allowing a long rest) and you have 2 adventuring days each with roughly 6 encounters.

Or simply throw a random encounter plus bad storms at them during the sea travel from islands 1-2 and again from 4-5 (disrupting the long rest, but allowing a short rest) then you have:

E1, E1 (SR) RE (SR) E2, (LR) - slightly under median Adventuring day (4 encounters, 2 short rests)
E3 (LR) - Long rest class (Wizard, Paladin, Barbarian, Casters) favoring single encounter AD, were you can dial the encounter difficulty right up.
E4, (SR) RE, (SR), E6, (SR) E6, (SR) E6 (SR), E6, E6, E6 - A long 8 encounter Adventuring day, with 4-5 short rests, that favors the Fighters, Monks and Warlocks.

Everyone gets the chance to shine, and it never feels 'samey'.

You have levers to pull as the DM. When you design your adventures during the week, its something to consider (how to frame the adventure as a whole).