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

[redrick]

Well according to the rules, you can only do one long rest per day. That means you have 16 hours you need to play out before you can do another one. Inside dungeons for exactly it is recommended to proceed time in minutes. Some actions like searching a whole room takes several minutes, but still, you will get at least say 200 rounds outside combat before the day comes to an end. Unless you do short rests in between to proceed some time. But that's still a lot of sitting around and waiting in enemy territory just to be able to take a long rest again. Or alternatively, the group enters the dungeon, does 2-3 battles, then travels back the next town, rests, goes back to the dungeon, does another 2-3 battles, leaves again... hmm it seems boring to me. And reduces the excitement of having to conserve resources and being scared of getting out alive.

There's nothing that says the players can't just say, "we wait for several hours and then take a long rest." We don't have to spend table-time tracking every 10-minute turn players spend in the dungeon if they don't plan to do anything specific during that time. Instead, it falls on the DM to decide (likely through wandering monster rolls), if the players are accosted while camped out reading and playing cards in Room 17 of the dungeon.

This isn't going to work well in small, concentrated dungeons, such as lairs, forts, etc, but in larger dungeons, there's definitely the possibility of spending 24 hours without serious interruption.

I've also had groups withdraw just beyond the entrance of a dungeon and camp for the night. When they come back, new traps have been put in place, fortifications have been improved, and sometimes monsters have even gone for reinforcements. But this may be preferable to soldiering on with low hit points and no spell slots.

Differing adventures have really varied. I've run adventures with lots of minor combats, so closer to the 6-8 benchmark, and then other adventures with larger, more draining combats that tended to grind a group down much more quickly. So maybe 3-5 on average? I've also found that I rarely have more than 3 or 4 combat encounters in one session, and I think players are often more interested in trying to long rest at the beginning or end of a session.

Of course, I generally roll 4 random encounter checks for a long rest in hostile territory, so there's a very good chance that a long rest will be interrupted, sometimes more than once in a night.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

What I find very interesting is that most of the BECMI modules I have read and run involve constant mention of tactics like 1 of 3 guards taking off to warn another 6 guards some stuff is going down, or mentioning that making noise in an area that monsters are hanging out near will draw their attention 50% of the time (most recently it was saying roll 1d6, and each result from 1 to 3 was a different monster that decided to check out the noise, with 4-6 being no monster deciding to investigate), making the map distances actually make some sense with how the encounters are set up.

The issues I ran into with old-school modules were always more along the lines of realistic or near realistic dimensions used for structures and their maps, but those dimensions not meshing well with using minis on the table because the 9 trolls sprawled on the stack of mattresses in center that 40' x 30' barracks building leaves nowhere to put the PC minis besides standing outside the door.

It was the modules in 3rd edition and 4th edition, with exceptions here and there, which I kept running into brain scratchers like one carefully balanced encounter of duergar fighting the party, and one more carefully balanced encounter of duergar literally just waiting on the other side of a door immediately adjacent to the spaces in which a dwarven PC and the duergar he was locked in a fight to the death with stood fighting. Like, what, did they just peek out the door at their friends getting murdered and think "nah, we'd better not be rude, best to wait our turn. Our friends won't curse us from the afterlife for it."

When I ran Lost Mines of Phandelver, I wasn't paying attention... don't recall one way or the other whether the space presented and the monsters behavior within it made sense.

Anyways, what I have done to solve the issue is, when faced with an offending module that I'm not already intentionally having the party over-level for to handle such issues as compounded encounters, is just stretch the scale of corridors wherever possible (usually taking a 1 square = 5 foot to 4 times that for passageway length, while leaving width and most room sizes unchainged), and include drunken or heavily distracted activity otherwise explaining what would appear to be "I didn't want to see if what sounded like my friend/coworker dying was actually that happening, even though it is my job to do that and benefits my chance of survival too," type behavior.

 

[MostlyDm]

I'd say it was only a 'combat' if both sides get to make attack rolls. Generally if you go out of initiative I'd say it was the end of that combat. If you have a minute between combats then that is two fights, especially if the GM calls for new initiative rolls. If waves of enemies arrive while the fight is ongoing that is one big combat.

Your definition of combat doesn't fit with the intended goal of the poll. Successive fights should be balanced and considered as distinct encounters.

If you fight an owlbear, and when it dies you fight another, and then when that dies you fight a third... That encounter's XP budget should not include a multiplier. They didn't take actions together, split attention, etc. it was three encounters, back to back.

Whether encounters are separated by 6 seconds or 6 minutes makes no difference in terms of difficulty and resources expended. Even a pause of 6 hours only matters if party is able to take a short rest.

A single drawn out fight in a keep, where you have an initial engagement followed by three waves of reinforcements is, for 5e encounters per day purposes, 4 encounters. If you take a short rest after clearing out the keep and then get ambushed by another group, then the sounds of your fight draws the attention of a monster just as the ambush ends, thats 2 more. Throw in a couple sentries that you took out before hitting the bulk of the keep and you have 7 full combat encounters separated by a single short rest.

 

[S'mon]

Your definition of combat doesn't fit with the intended goal of the poll.

Since I wrote both the definition & the poll, I can assure you that the definition does fit with the intended goal of the poll.

 

[redrick]

Your definition of combat doesn't fit with the intended goal of the poll. Successive fights should be balanced and considered as distinct encounters.

If you fight an owlbear, and when it dies you fight another, and then when that dies you fight a third... That encounter's XP budget should not include a multiplier. They didn't take actions together, split attention, etc. it was three encounters, back to back.

Whether encounters are separated by 6 seconds or 6 minutes makes no difference in terms of difficulty and resources expended. Even a pause of 6 hours only matters if party is able to take a short rest.

A single drawn out fight in a keep, where you have an initial engagement followed by three waves of reinforcements is, for 5e encounters per day purposes, 4 encounters. If you take a short rest after clearing out the keep and then get ambushed by another group, then the sounds of your fight draws the attention of a monster just as the ambush ends, thats 2 more. Throw in a couple sentries that you took out before hitting the bulk of the keep and you have 7 full combat encounters separated by a single short rest.

I'm not sure that the intended poll of the goal is just to determine xp budgets per day.

While fighting 3 owblears at once is harder than fighting 3 owlbears in a row, fighting 3 owlbears in quick succession is harder than fighting 3 owblears with a one minute break in between.

As long as combat is uninterrupted, meaning that every round includes the possibility of enemy attacks, PCs are forced to stay within the strict action economy. This means they might not be able to regroup if they have been split apart by attackers. They might not be able to easily stabilize an unconscious ally, or calmly administer a healing potion. They might not have time to strap on a shield, or bar doors and windows. They might not be able to effectively search a room for traps. They won't be able to set up an ambush.

And, most importantly, the feel of gameplay of a stream of combatants is one of continuous combat. We had this in our game the other day. Characters met resistance. One of the enemies turned to flee, and adventurers chased him down the hall, only to meet more enemies at the end of the hall. Just as these enemies were being defeated, two more large enemies entered the room, attracted by the sounds of combat. The whole thing took up a lot of time at the table, and it felt like one combat. (It was also a blast.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I try to stick to the 6-8 average when running 5e, since maintaining that average in the face of a 1-encounter day would mean at least an 11-encounter day (or maybe 6-8 9-encounter days), and consistently breaking it would result in too-easy encounters and PC resource imbalances (making spotlight balance that much harder to force). I usually resort to something like the 13A solution, and have 'reasons' that the party can't benefit from a full rest until they've put in their required encounters. Potentially lame, but I generally manage to insert something remotely plausible for 'reasons.' Time pressures, limited supplies, environments unsuitable for long (or even short) rests, more time pressures...

'Random' encounters can do the trick when the party insists on resting off-script.

At least, for ongoing games. For a one-off in a limited time slot, like a convention game, just no rests, or maybe one big, obvious 'take a short rest here' opportunity, depending on whether the pre-gens included any short-rest-recharge-heavy classes (and just, say, never using a Warlock or fighter isn't a great option there, either).

One place it's never really worked that well is in Encounters: Players will miss sessions, so their characters have essentially had fewer encounters than others' or new players will come in towards the 'end of the day' with a fresh character. :shrug: I guess you can see it as compensation for 'missing the fun' those weeks you couldn't make it, your character gets to blow more resources when you do get to play.

 

[MostlyDm]

Since I wrote both the definition & the poll, I can assure you that the definition does fit with the intended goal of the poll.

Your stated goal is to see how many people follow the "encounters per day" 5e guidelines. As I explained, the way you were defining "encounters" is not really consistent with how they function in the DMG.

 

[MostlyDm]

I'm not sure that the intended poll of the goal is just to determine xp budgets per day.

While fighting 3 owblears at once is harder than fighting 3 owlbears in a row, fighting 3 owlbears in quick succession is harder than fighting 3 owblears with a one minute break in between.

As long as combat is uninterrupted, meaning that every round includes the possibility of enemy attacks, PCs are forced to stay within the strict action economy. This means they might not be able to regroup if they have been split apart by attackers. They might not be able to easily stabilize an unconscious ally, or calmly administer a healing potion. They might not have time to strap on a shield, or bar doors and windows. They might not be able to effectively search a room for traps. They won't be able to set up an ambush.

And, most importantly, the feel of gameplay of a stream of combatants is one of continuous combat. We had this in our game the other day. Characters met resistance. One of the enemies turned to flee, and adventurers chased him down the hall, only to meet more enemies at the end of the hall. Just as these enemies were being defeated, two more large enemies entered the room, attracted by the sounds of combat. The whole thing took up a lot of time at the table, and it felt like one combat. (It was also a blast.)

These are all great points but they don't directly impact encounter design in 5e. Same way that starting an encounter when the party is asleep (and so partially unarmed, prone, etc.) doesn't make the encounter count for more or less encounters. Those difficulties aren't factored into action economy any more than having warning to buff or no warning is.

What factors into action economy is how many critters are on the field at a time. That's it. Waves of enemies are, in the most critical sense, each a distinct encounter by DMG guidelines.

I agree that those factors make a huge difference in tone though. 100% with you there. Four waves of foes feel very different and more stressful than four random disconnected encounters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So there's no difference whatsoever between "fight waves until all daily and short rest abilities are exhausted, then short rest, then fight one more, Deadly encounter" and "fight waves until all daily&SR resources are exhausted, and then immediately fight a Deadly combat, no resting"?

Because that strikes me as obviously different, like night-and-day different. I expect a TPK for the former, while the latter *might* be survivable. For a heavily SR dependent party (Battlemaster, Moon Druid, Warlock, Monk, maybe a Bard?) the rest might even make the fight no longer "deadly" per se, while a heavily LR dependent party (Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, EK, Sorcerer) would see very minimal difference, comparatively.

 

[MostlyDm]

So there's no difference whatsoever between "fight waves until all daily and short rest abilities are exhausted, then short rest, then fight one more, Deadly encounter" and "fight waves until all daily&SR resources are exhausted, and then immediately fight a Deadly combat, no resting"?

Because that strikes me as obviously different, like night-and-day different. I expect a TPK for the former, while the latter *might* be survivable. For a heavily SR dependent party (Battlemaster, Moon Druid, Warlock, Monk, maybe a Bard?) the rest might even make the fight no longer "deadly" per se, while a heavily LR dependent party (Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, EK, Sorcerer) would see very minimal difference, comparatively.

No, I agree those are hugely different, due to the short rest. In my earlier post I specifically indicated that the short rest is the thing that's key.

The distinction is this: multiple back to back encounters that function, thematically, as a single, tense, drawn out engagement (separated only be a handful of seconds or a minute or two) vs. the same number of encounters drawn out over a longer period of time, but in which there is no time/safety to take a short rest.

Let's say there are three engagements in the wave-based epic battle, vs. three distinct fights in the staggered example. The first one is not "one encounter" to the second's "three encounters." For DMG purposes, they're both basically three encounters.

They're still massively different in terms of various trappings, tone, etc. But strictly within an encounter balancing context, the epic battle can be considered three encounters. The duration between "encounters" only really matters if it allows for a short rest. That was my only point.

The place this breaks down is if the waves overlap significantly. At that point, it could be closer to a single higher-difficulty encounter.