hmm, average is less than 3 combats per Long rest here.
so much for 6-8 combats per day idea...
Encounters. 6-8 encounters.
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes is live! 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Back it now on Kickstarter!
hmm, average is less than 3 combats per Long rest here.
so much for 6-8 combats per day idea...
It was also specifically talking about medium encounters, just using hard encounters can cut that in half.The 6-8 combats a day always sounded more like a warning than something to aspire to. From memory, the advice in the DMG stated that PCs could probably handle around 6-8 combats per long rest before running on empty and needing a long rest to recover.
Well, it goes back to the problem with your OP... what did you expect???hmm, average is less than 3 combats per Long rest here.
so much for 6-8 combats per day idea...
Actually, it was medium or hard...It was also specifically talking about medium encounters, just using hard encounters can cut that in half.
There is also a quote from Mearls out there about that being what they assumed and mapped toThe 6-8 combats a day always sounded more like a warning than something to aspire to. From memory, the advice in the DMG stated that PCs could probably handle around 6-8 combats per long rest before running on empty and needing a long rest to recover.
This... okay, let me restate this with cars.
Me: "If you have a flat tire, it's a sign that your car isn't fit to drive."
You: "I don't think having a flat tire is the one and only barometer a car being fit to drive."
I trust you can see how those differ.
I'd be glad to discuss how wildly varying effectiveness per action is or is not a sign of in-combat imbalance. Basically, you will need to show that regardless of the number of encounters, both at-will and casters have around the same output over time - so no "this particular situation favors one or the other".
I suspect that many posters who say something along the lines of "the story determines when you get rests" are running sandbox games where finding (or making!) time to rest is explicitly the players' responsibility. In such games (which are very traditional indeed) the content isn't tailored to the PCs and there's no expectation whether they will or will not be able to successfully accomplish their chosen goals, so it would be somewhat contradictory if the DM were to nevertheless deliberately build in opportunities to rest. Instead, rests happen either "organically" when the PCs don't have any more-urgent priorities, or else when the players decide that taking a rest is the party's most-urgent priority and work to make it happen.I wanted to comment on the notion that "the story determines when you get rests." In D&D, I find that notion the DM equivalent of "it's what my character would do."
As a DM in traditional play, you create the environment. You make the rooms, deploy the monsters, and set any time limits on what's happening. The "story" only exists because of what you've created. So if an adventuring day becomes 12 encounters, that's largely because of what you did. And like everything I write, if you and your players are having fun, who am I to gripe about it? The only thing I can say is: it's you who's making that decision (especially with time concerns) and largely not your players. Of course there are always those players who are ready to roll for one more room, even when they are spent, and god love 'em.
There are other ways to play than traditional D&D play. There's "emergent play," and "play to find out, err ... play," and those are traditionally found in the PbtA world.
Those games typically aren't about tactical combat. I can't think of a single PbtA or FitD game that is (although I'd like to try it if it exists!) You can resolve entire combats, or even multiple combats, with a single die roll. In Blades in the Dark, we had a game where the GM had us make a Positioning Check (it's the first part of a Score, where you determine where you pick up with active play) and then narrated how we had half a dozen fights before we got to the locked door we were looking for. That's ... not how D&D is commonly played.
As a player in D&D, you're always concerned with resources and the adventuring day, as long as you're playing a character who has resources that reset on Rests. That's whether the DM is concerned with them or not. "What can I afford to do here? Is this encounter worth using another spell slot? Is my Action Surge worth it to use so early in the day?" ... and so on.
What is all this rambling about? Just that when you create an adventuring site, you're naturally making one or more adventuring days. And if you're creating something your players can't be expected to do, it's in the same light as the player who attacks the guards because it's what their character would do.
That is how I do it, yes.I suspect that many posters who say something along the lines of "the story determines when you get rests" are running sandbox games where finding (or making!) time to rest is explicitly the players' responsibility. In such games (which are very traditional indeed) the content isn't tailored to the PCs and there's no expectation whether they will or will not be able to successfully accomplish their chosen goals, so it would be somewhat contradictory if the DM were to nevertheless deliberately build in opportunities to rest. Instead, rests happen either "organically" when the PCs don't have any more-urgent priorities, or else when the players decide that taking a rest is the party's most-urgent priority and work to make it happen.
BustedI suspect that many posters who say something along the lines of "the story determines when you get rests" are running sandbox games where finding (or making!) time to rest is explicitly the players' responsibility. In such games (which are very traditional indeed) the content isn't tailored to the PCs and there's no expectation whether they will or will not be able to successfully accomplish their chosen goals, so it would be somewhat contradictory if the DM were to nevertheless deliberately build in opportunities to rest. Instead, rests happen either "organically" when the PCs don't have any more-urgent priorities, or else when the players decide that taking a rest is the party's most-urgent priority and work to make it happen.
Nailed it.I suspect that many posters who say something along the lines of "the story determines when you get rests" are running sandbox games where finding (or making!) time to rest is explicitly the players' responsibility. In such games (which are very traditional indeed) the content isn't tailored to the PCs and there's no expectation whether they will or will not be able to successfully accomplish their chosen goals, so it would be somewhat contradictory if the DM were to nevertheless deliberately build in opportunities to rest. Instead, rests happen either "organically" when the PCs don't have any more-urgent priorities, or else when the players decide that taking a rest is the party's most-urgent priority and work to make it happen.
I'll say this doesn't obviate any responsibility on the part of the DM for what happens encounter wise. Long ago, I played with a player who had a reaction table he used to determine what his character did when he met an NPC. Did he want to be friends? Was it time to roll for initiative? Only the dice know! If you've seen the Simpsons episode with Gary in it, they make a joke of it where he makes a D20 roll to determine his own reaction. That kind of thing. It was definitely fun, for him.I suspect that many posters who say something along the lines of "the story determines when you get rests" are running sandbox games where finding (or making!) time to rest is explicitly the players' responsibility. In such games (which are very traditional indeed) the content isn't tailored to the PCs and there's no expectation whether they will or will not be able to successfully accomplish their chosen goals, so it would be somewhat contradictory if the DM were to nevertheless deliberately build in opportunities to rest. Instead, rests happen either "organically" when the PCs don't have any more-urgent priorities, or else when the players decide that taking a rest is the party's most-urgent priority and work to make it happen.