D&D 5E (2014) How many combats does your 5e group typically have between long rests, if you have at least one?

[Rya.Reisender]

You're making a certain set of assumptions here, including "what happens in the room stays in the room." In my game it would be more typical that the noise you make during a fight draws creatures from nearby rooms, either immediately or after a short delay; instead of fighting eight tiny groups of 2-3 bugbears at a time you're dealing with two dozen bugbears in the immediate vicinity, and your job during the fight is to handle them quickly enough that you don't get overwhelmed. Same bugbears, different assumptions--and doing it all as one fight actually makes it (potentially) harder, not easier.

Successfully taking an hour-long break in the middle of that fight is not likely unless you've already repulsed the bugbears and they've withdrawn to rest and/or change up their strategy.

I just can't make myself believe in the idea of 6-8 discretized fights that don't overlap at all, unless some of those fights are simple assassinations that are over during the surprise round with no noise during the kill.

Nobody forces you to do it like this, though. If the module doesn't say that a battle can be heard from a nearby room (usually on a successful DC 15 perception check), I don't make everbody swarm at the PCs the moment they start their first battle in the dungeon. Each room has its own story and inhabitants which are all described to be doing something the moment the group enters. Playing each room separately seems a lot more interesting to me than just having one large battle when the group enters the dungeons and then being stuck exploring an empty dungeon for the rest of the day, because the group already killed everyone inside.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're making a certain set of assumptions here, including "what happens in the room stays in the room." In my game it would be more typical that the noise you make during a fight draws creatures from nearby rooms, either immediately or after a short delay; instead of fighting eight tiny groups of 2-3 bugbears at a time you're dealing with two dozen bugbears in the immediate vicinity, and your job during the fight is to handle them quickly enough that you don't get overwhelmed. Same bugbears, different assumptions--and doing it all as one fight actually makes it (potentially) harder, not easier.

Successfully taking an hour-long break in the middle of that fight is not likely unless you've already repulsed the bugbears and they've withdrawn to rest and/or change up their strategy.

I just can't make myself believe in the idea of 6-8 discretized fights that don't overlap at all, unless some of those fights are simple assassinations that are over during the surprise round with no noise during the kill.

Yeah, I had a 4e game where something like this happened. It was an enormous fight and if we hadn't blown all our "major" resources, people would've died (or at least rolled death saves--I only stayed standing because I was a Paladin, with survival abilities, and had two leaders backing me up). I'd really rather not repeat that experience in any game system at any point in the slightly near future.

I can understand your issues--they are, in fact, the "other side"* of my criticism of 5e's "short" rest. I think it's ridiculous that any more-or-less enclosed space--like a dungeon, a fort, a cave, an enemy village/encampment, or just about anything an Adventuring Party might explore that isn't a huge and trackless forest--can house distinct encounters that are widely-separated enough that a group can just take an hour-long break and not either (a) alert the entire area, (b) allow their enemies to replenish their strength, or (c) both. As a result, the majority of dangerous places strike me as woefully inappropriate for 5e adventuring parties--you're almost guaranteed to bring the whole thing down on your head, and because 5e is a numbers game, that basically means you die.

Of course, I haven't yet had a chance to see too much of this in action, but it's a major concern. The fact that you've voiced (essentially) exactly what I said, just from an (apparently) positive perspective,* increases my concern that it's true.

*I am assuming you think this is a good thing, whereas I don't. If that assumption is false, I apologize.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Let's say you are in the enemy hideout and entering the sleeping chambers. You encounter some enemies there just went to sleep (if it's day, it's the night shift). You kill them and close the door. Now I find it reasonable to say there could be up to 6 hours in which nobody enters the chamber again (after that the guards looking for their shift replacement for example or the next group wanting to sleep comes). So a short rest is quite likely to succeed, a long rest would probably never succeed, however.

In the official modules dungeons often have rooms were enemies are very unlikely to enter in general, too. Even if there are patrols, they would usually patrol the hallways rather than entering every single room (unless they notice something suspicious). Keep in mind that they have probably been patrolling every day for months with nothing happening, so they won't be super alert by default.

And if hearing someone behind a door requires a successful DC 15 perception check then hearing someone behind two doors is probably at least very hard (DC 25), so very unlikely to happen.

And talking about non-inteligent creatures. If you block their path (e.g. by closing a door), they are unlikely to enter. And many of the creatures (e.g. spiders) are more lurkers, waiting for victims to come rather than they are hunters, actively hunting for prey.

I find all of this quite reasonable and it makes the dungeon crawling a lot more enjoyable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nobody forces you to do it like this, though. If the module doesn't say that a battle can be heard from a nearby room (usually on a successful DC 15 perception check), I don't make everbody swarm at the PCs the moment they start their first battle in the dungeon. Each room has its own story and inhabitants which are all described to be doing something the moment the group enters. Playing each room separately seems a lot more interesting to me than just having one large battle when the group enters the dungeons and then being stuck exploring an empty dungeon for the rest of the day, because the group already killed everyone inside.

Sure, if you find it more interesting to keep them separate, you're free to do so. You just can't claim that it's harder that way, because it's not. Separate fights are easier.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah, I had a 4e game where something like this happened. It was an enormous fight and if we hadn't blown all our "major" resources, people would've died (or at least rolled death saves--I only stayed standing because I was a Paladin, with survival abilities, and had two leaders backing me up). I'd really rather not repeat that experience in any game system at any point in the slightly near future.

I can understand your issues--they are, in fact, the "other side"* of my criticism of 5e's "short" rest. I think it's ridiculous that any more-or-less enclosed space--like a dungeon, a fort, a cave, an enemy village/encampment, or just about anything an Adventuring Party might explore that isn't a huge and trackless forest--can house distinct encounters that are widely-separated enough that a group can just take an hour-long break and not either (a) alert the entire area, (b) allow their enemies to replenish their strength, or (c) both. As a result, the majority of dangerous places strike me as woefully inappropriate for 5e adventuring parties--you're almost guaranteed to bring the whole thing down on your head, and because 5e is a numbers game, that basically means you die.

Of course, I haven't yet had a chance to see too much of this in action, but it's a major concern. The fact that you've voiced (essentially) exactly what I said, just from an (apparently) positive perspective,* increases my concern that it's true.

*I am assuming you think this is a good thing, whereas I don't. If that assumption is false, I apologize.

Naw, you don't have to die. PCs are pretty strong, and unlike monsters they think in bullet time and make near-perfect decisions instantly; and since they're the aggressors, the PCs by definition will already be equipped for combat while the bugbears may not even be dressed for combat at first (it takes five minutes to put on Medium armor, which bugbears wear). Surprise is quite powerful. And you always have the option of retreating to where you left your horses (hopefully they're still alive, and usually they would be), and if the bugbears chase you you can make them pay. You might or might not kill all two dozen bugbears in a single raid, but you can almost certainly strike and get out, the first time. So make the first time count, because next they'll be coming after you in your home base.

Approach it like a roleplaying game and things will turn out fine. If your DM approaches it like a videogame it will be a lot less satisfying.

 

[Gnashtooth]

In the games we play, we have 2-4 per day usually, but all of these fights are really tough, and someone almost always goes down. Most of these fights usually have 12-16 creatures involved.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm actually surprised at the results, I thought it would be 6-8 for almost everyone. Aren't your games incredibly easy if you allow a long rest so often? A whole day of adventuring is also so boring if you only have 2-3 battles in it. All the official adventure modules have 6-8 battles per dungeon (including field encounters on the way there), and I usually require my group to finish it before they can do a long rest. They usually do 2 short rest inside the dungeon, though.

A lot of us also don't really use dungeons at all. Pretty much all of my games revolve around outdoor travel. Even at indoor sites, I think the maximum encounters I've had before a long rest is 4.

It's why in my next game I'm using the slow healing rules, where a short rest is 6 hrs and a long rest is 72 hrs in a safe area.

 

[Baumi]

Most Session I played only have 1 or 2 fights! These Adventures are often Exploration based, so there are even multible long rests between the fights. Dungeons are very rare and if it is a combat-focused Session (infiltrate and destroy this orc-lair) is still don't have more than 3-4 Fights.

Of course this fights are usually hard to deadly, but I cannot imagine how the "normal" 6-8 fight/day should work in this Campaign. Even in my own campaign, which is the official Princes of the Apocalypse, the players never do a whole dungeon at one go (they mostly flee before that ).

This is the reason why I hate the "balance" between short and long Rest Powers/Spells, which makes some classes stronger/weaker depending on the style of the Adventure.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Sure, if you find it more interesting to keep them separate, you're free to do so. You just can't claim that it's harder that way, because it's not. Separate fights are easier.

Of course a single big battle is harder than many small fights against the same total number of creatures. Separate is just more interesting. And separating them is needed to fully use the short rest / long rest system as intended by the designer (as in 2-3 battle per short rest and two short rests per long rest).


D&D without dungeons... that would not be for me at all. I'd rather play D&D without NPCs!

 

[S'mon]

As a result, the majority of dangerous places strike me as woefully inappropriate for 5e adventuring parties--you're almost guaranteed to bring the whole thing down on your head, and because 5e is a numbers game, that basically means you die.

This is pretty much the case in BECMI too. I'm running B5 Horror on the Hill; best solution in both Classoc & 5e is to have the PCs be much higher level than the adventure says.