D&D 5E How many combat encounters per adventuring day does your group have?

[clearstream]

Gritty. Seems to be working pacing wise OK. I try to make each session it's own 'mini-adventure' so that the long rest basically can be the downtime between the sessions.

We have quite short sessions - about 3 hours - and by my count we have about one long rest per 4 sessions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We have quite short sessions - about 3 hours - and by my count we have about one long rest per 4 sessions.

That seems rather extreme to me. But if the players are OK with waiting that long to get their powers back, then I guess it's fine.

 

[pogre]

It's what comes natural.

3-5 in a "dungeon" or adventure.
10-12 in a dungeon dungeon.
2 in the wilderness environment.
1 in a normal urban or rural environment.
2-3 in a violent urban or rural environment

It's complicated.

Very close to what our campaigns look like.

In the dungeon environment we average 2.4 combats per hour - I kept track during our Mad Mage campaign.

Grendel_Khan said:

Most of these answers are incredibly wild to me. I've never played or run a game with the volume of low-stakes combat you guys are talking about. How do you set up dramatic tension over time if the game is packed with cakewalk fights? I've never watched Critical Role but I'm guessing Mercer isn't just setting up these kinds of MMO grinds, right?

My group loves combat - loves it! When the folks on Critical Role moan and despair when Mercer pulls out some DF and minis for a combat scene - that is completely the opposite of my game. Watching two players have an in-depth exchange in their roles for 30 minutes would be a screaming bore for my table, unless they were professional voice actors or something, (even then I doubt it would be tolerated on a regular basis). That does not make our table better or worse than Mercer's table - his style is better for his table, and my style is better for our table. I am fairly confident that Matt Mercer would agree.

I would not characterize our style as an mmo-grind, but dramatic tension does not seem to be a problem for us - even if we have a few steam-roller encounters.

 

[Malmuria]

Thanks for the responses! I suppose another way to frame the session is how much do you want your game to involve combat encounters. For me, encounters where the main tension is management of per rest resources is not really interesting, since the outcome is not question, it's just a matter of how efficient you can be. This also makes even simple combats involve a lot of players look at their character sheets trying to decide what to do. IMO, in older editions things like wandering monster checks are more viable because the only real resource to track is hp, plus things like torches out of combat. In 5e that style feels less fluid (for me).

We usually have 1-2 fights per session, but adventuring days can last over 2-3 sessions. That creates weird narrative pacing, where you've been playing a campaign for six months, but that's only been 10 in-game days. Further, I've found putting together "deadly" encounters in 5e ends up with a lot of weird and random swings, where one PC drops to 0 hp and another is barely touched, or that turn into slugfests. I think what I want ideally is 1-2 deadly fights per adventuring day, where the PCs are at full capacity, that are not either cakewalks or TPK by dice randomness.

I don't watch critical role but I did search out and watch one of their combats to see how it went. It was a big set piece encounter that the PCs were nervous about and seemed to have narrative stakes. There was a nice terrain set up. But once it got going, it was 6 pcs vs 1 creature, an easy fight, and it didn't matter that the players didn't remember half their PC abilities. In the hands of a less charismatic DM/group, it would be really boring.

 

[clearstream]

That seems rather extreme to me. But if the players are OK with waiting that long to get their powers back, then I guess it's fine.

The party consists of: glamour bard, shadow monk, life cleric, battle master, lore bard and scout rogue. So a mix of short and long rest classes.

We had previously used more frequent rests, and found random encounters weren't worth having... only hard or deadly encounters mattered. I grew weary of all-deadly all-alpha all-the-time play. There are settings where that works - say where you want fewer encounters and heightened lethality in those few, perhaps punctuating a more political or social game. For the kind of dungeoneering game that OOTA and ToA support (the campaign I ran, and the one I am running), I feel that more is gained from meaningfully exhausting resources.

 

[Yora]

Random encounters are kind of a lost art.

If the players get their XP from winning fights, then random encounters no longer serve their purpose as something players want to avoid. Instead it's XP coming to them, rather than having to be hunted down.

Random encounters also need to have a reaction roll, since those encounters that results in a non-hostile response from the creatures create the most interesting situations that make the system more than just choppy slog.

And finally, the original random encounters system absolutely had encounters that would count as hard or deadly. The players never knowing what they get is a critical part of how random encounters are supposed to work. Very dangerous creatures with little reward to be gained from defeating them makes retreat a desirable option, which again leads to new potentially interesting situations.

 

[Asisreo]

If the players get their XP from winning fights, then random encounters no longer serve their purpose as something players want to avoid.

I can see where the idea of Random Encounters to drain resources or add combat-specific tension has arisen.

I do respectfully disagree that the purpose of Random Encounters, in a modern environment, something the players inherently want to avoid.

Random Encounters are meant to spice up the game however this can occur. It could be surprise treasure or a sudden helpful NPC.

I do agree that DMs have gotten too scared of putting excessively high CR threats in a random table since these ludacris high-level creatures can provide interesting worldbuilding and roleplay opportunities.

 

[Larnievc]

A discussion in a different thread has me wondering. For the purposes of this poll, don't count days that are just spent shopping with no chance of "adventure."

I don’t really use wandering encounters so I normally have a good idea how prepared the party will be when the get to each fight.

 

[Yora]

The main purpose of random encounters is to put pressure on players to move through dungeons quickly an quietly, which conflicts with the need to proceed carefully. This is one of the main ways to create tension in dungeon crawls.
Or that was the concept 40 years ago.

 

[Flamestrike]

A discussion in a different thread has me wondering. For the purposes of this poll, don't count days that are just spent shopping with no chance of "adventure."

An adventuring day is a day with 1 or more encounter. The weeks of travel or whatever in the middle of such days are not adventuring days.

Also; an adventuring day is not necessarily 1 day long. Its the arbitrary amount of time between two long rests, which can be multiple in game days, or even multiple weeks if using the 'Gritty realism' rest variant.