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

[EzekielRaiden]

If I had to hazard a guess--only a guess, and one with my "forum polls are terrible data" Standard Disclaimer--I think this and the poll I made tell us three things, with the huge caveat that they may not even apply outside of the people directly asked.

1. D&D players in general form a roughly bimodal distribution. The first mode I will call "short day players," who have only 1-4 combats a "day" (if they have any at all), and 0-2 (average 1) short rests per "day." Incidentally, I'm going to call the period between long rests a "day" even though not everyone plays them as days--it's just convenience so I don't have to keep circumlocuting. The second mode I will call "long day players," who have 4-8 combats a "day" (avg. 5, maybe 5.5) and 1-3 short rests (average between 1.5 and 2). Occasionally some people will fall between the modes, as a result of encounters bleeding together into one large encounter, but I feel the modes are still meaningfully distinct nonetheless.

2. 5e was primarily designed more for "long day" players, hence the references to 6-8 combats a day, resting 2-3 times per day, etc. Thus, "short day" groups find 5e to be easier than expected, especially if their parties are heavily biased toward long rests (e.g. Paladin, Cleric, Wizard). People on the extreme end of the "long day" spectrum may find 5e to be harder than expected.

3. Some groups intuitively adjust for the difference between their playstyle and the game's expected resource drain, but a good portion do not. Again, this is especially true for "short-day" groups with parties biased toward long rests. The DMG as it stands does not provide enough advice/explicit recognition of the bimodal split and how it can interact with party composition.

 

[Rhenny]

What's really interesting, and somewhat baffling, is the number of responses that chose 1-2 combats per day. Are these groups playing more story driven campaigns that have a lot of exploration and interaction, rather than combat?

It would be interesting to replace the word "combat" in the poll with "encounters" to see the difference. Perhaps the DM designs more encounters per day, but the players only fight in a few of them. In the others they figure out a way to proceed without fighting through interaction, stealth, or other problem solving.

Whatever the case may be, I think as a rough guide, the DMG is right on (except at 1st level). With easy encounters and medium encounters it seems as if a party can go for 6-8 combats before taking a long rest. That doesn't mean that all groups will do that, and of course 1 killer combat will zap the party for a day.

 

[S'mon]

1. D&D players in general form a roughly bimodal distribution. The first mode I will call "short day players," who have only 1-4 combats a "day" (if they have any at all), and 0-2 (average 1) short rests per "day." Incidentally, I'm going to call the period between long rests a "day" even though not everyone plays them as days--it's just convenience so I don't have to keep circumlocuting. The second mode I will call "long day players," who have 4-8 combats a "day" (avg. 5, maybe 5.5) and 1-3 short rests (average between 1.5 and 2).

I can't see any evidence of a bimodal distribution on this poll. 70% have 1-4 fights, 30% have 4+ fights, but the distribution is pretty even across 1-2 2-3 3-4, then declines continuously 4-5 6-8 and 8+. There is no central valley between two popular approaches, other than that 2-3 is slightly less popular than 1-2 and 3-4. If it is bimodal then the modes are "under 2" and "3-5+"; 6+ is not even a particularly fat tail.

 

[Rhenny]

I voted 6-8. I've brought my old 1e players back together in a Fantasy Grounds campaign (LMoP right now) and things like Cragmaw Hideout, Cragmaw Castle, and even Thundertee were 6-8 encounters before bugging out for Long Rest. Nobody is complaining it's "too easy", but that is probably more DMing skill (excuse my boast) than encounter design. Each piece is certainly easy, but I never let them feel each is a discrete thing. There is always the risk of more foes around the corner, and a few times they've triggered nearby encounters.

We play a 2-3 session 1/week and the more, easier, encounters gives us the feel of zooming along in those 2 hours. Even the RP goes quick as we are all aware of the ticking clock and want to maximize our time. In addition, the online format pretty much stops distracted side conversations.

I agree with you here. My group is primarily the same. We like the feeling of progress so easy encounters don't necessarily mean that the encounter or session is boring. Quite the opposite. With a smattering of easy encounters, the players tend to engage more and see the story unfold more quickly, making it more exciting. I guess for us (and probably for you too) variety plays a huge role in creating fear, suspense and excitement too. It is important that the players never really know when they will be faced with a more difficult challenge. I hate the classic encounter structure that places a number of easy fights building to the boss fight. Too predictable. Sure, once in a while it is cool, but sometimes having a deadly fight, or the fear of a deadly fight earlier in the adventure goes a long way to making the game feel dangerous even if the PCs don't get damaged too badly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't see any evidence of a bimodal distribution on this poll. 70% have 1-4 fights, 30% have 4+ fights, but the distribution is pretty even across 1-2 2-3 3-4, then declines continuously 4-5 6-8 and 8+. There is no central valley between two popular approaches, other than that 2-3 is slightly less popular than 1-2 and 3-4. If it is bimodal then the modes are "under 2" and "3-5+"; 6+ is not even a particularly fat tail.

This is true--this poll alone doesn't support it. I'm mostly guessing at this part of the bimodal-ness, for related but not polled reasons. The other poll is very clearly bimodal.

My reason for suspecting bimodality even among combats is, simply put, the books themselves. WotC spent two+ years playtesting this thing. If there was absolutely any data they collected whatsoever, surely it would have to be the number of fights people tend to get into between long rests. Surely, if they weren't just making up numbers without any reference to actual player behavior, they were basing the "6-8 encounters a day" advice (which is mentioned in the PHB, so I can only assume it is mentioned more frequently in the DMG) on choices actually made by players. Thus, on the basis that there IS a clear bimodal distribution for short rests between long rests, and the fact that WotC so clearly expected 6-8 encounters per day even though this poll would indicate that 2-4 fights is far, far more common...I believe that there really is some degree of "splitting" within the fandom. Some like short, dangerous days with few rests. Others like longer, smoother days with slightly more rests--perhaps reflecting a desire for more "attrition" than "swinginess," I dunno.

Otherwise, we have a really difficult to explain gap--where a whole mess of groups take around 1 short rest a day, and a separate group takes around 3 a day (or slightly less, on average), but for some reason both groups only have 1-4 encounters per day. I mean, I admit that that is an actual possibility...but it seems really unlikely to me.

Of course, without actual data (since, as I've stated many a time, forum polls are junk), all of this is just whistlin' Dixie as far as actual analysis goes.

 

[jrowland]

With a smattering of easy encounters, the players tend to engage more and see the story unfold more quickly, making it more exciting. I guess for us (and probably for you too) variety plays a huge role in creating fear, suspense and excitement too. It is important that the players never really know when they will be faced with a more difficult challenge.

Expanding on this, more, but easy encounters can be combined into a deadly encounter fairly easily. In that sense, my Players are always on their toes, because an errant shout (or thunderwave), an enemy fleeing, etc. can easily bring more creatures to the fight and things can go from easy to deadly very quick. So the suspense is even built into the 6-8 encounters by virtue of this. Just read most of the Campaign recaps out there regarding LMoP and Cragmaw Hideout...Triggering the whole complex makes for a very deadly fight, but should always be on the table...

 

[redrick]

What's really interesting, and somewhat baffling, is the number of responses that chose 1-2 combats per day. Are these groups playing more story driven campaigns that have a lot of exploration and interaction, rather than combat?

It would be interesting to replace the word "combat" in the poll with "encounters" to see the difference. Perhaps the DM designs more encounters per day, but the players only fight in a few of them. In the others they figure out a way to proceed without fighting through interaction, stealth, or other problem solving.

Whatever the case may be, I think as a rough guide, the DMG is right on (except at 1st level). With easy encounters and medium encounters it seems as if a party can go for 6-8 combats before taking a long rest. That doesn't mean that all groups will do that, and of course 1 killer combat will zap the party for a day.

Yes, I certainly try to have more potential combats in a day than actual combats, and PCs will sometimes burn resources in order to avoid those combats. There's also traps to consider, which can eat into hit points and spell slots without constituting a "combat."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

2. 5e was primarily designed more for "long day" players, hence the references to 6-8 combats a day, resting 2-3 times per day, etc. Thus, "short day" groups find 5e to be easier than expected, especially if their parties are heavily biased toward long rests (e.g. Paladin, Cleric, Wizard). People on the extreme end of the "long day" spectrum may find 5e to be harder than expected.

If you change the phrase "especially if" to "provided that", your statement will be correct. But as written, the bolded statement actually a non sequitur. 5E is officially supports any number of combats per day, even per DMG guidelines, but I think you're correct that the game is balanced around lots of little fights. That doesn't mean 1-3 combats per day will be easier than expected; what it means is that long-rest PCs will be proportionately overpowered relative to other PCs. "One big fight" will mean that warlocks look weaker than wizards, and fighters look weaker than paladins. It doesn't say anything about whether the fights themselves will be hard or easy, it says something about which character classes are best suited for that type of campaign. A party of warlocks would obviously find one big fight harder than lots of little fights, not easier.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What's really interesting, and somewhat baffling, is the number of responses that chose 1-2 combats per day. Are these groups playing more story driven campaigns that have a lot of exploration and interaction, rather than combat?

Probably so. I did my first 6+ combat day in 5E last night, and in order to make it happen I had to cut out everything story-related and offer the players a pure hack-and-slash experience. "No, you can't even attempt to befriend that flying snake. No, you can't take the baker's hat--it disappears when you get to the next area. No, you can't ride that horse. Everything in the Corridors of Chaos exists only to die fighting you and give you XP and treasure. The horse is attacking you. Declare actions." I found it kind of boring and meaningless, and frankly I think my players will too if they do it frequently, but it seemed to scratch a certain itch for abnegation, letting the PCs test their capabilities and learn to work as a team.

There's no way I could fit in 6-8 discrete combats in a normal day that wasn't in the Corridors of Chaos. There's just not enough time, and my players aren't that aggressive. I'd probably have to run fifteen or twenty scenarios that day in order for 6-8 of them to turn into combats.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Expanding on this, more, but easy encounters can be combined into a deadly encounter fairly easily. In that sense, my Players are always on their toes, because an errant shout (or thunderwave), an enemy fleeing, etc. can easily bring more creatures to the fight and things can go from easy to deadly very quick. So the suspense is even built into the 6-8 encounters by virtue of this. Just read most of the Campaign recaps out there regarding LMoP and Cragmaw Hideout...Triggering the whole complex makes for a very deadly fight, but should always be on the table...

One problem with this poll is that it's not clear what an 'encounter' is, from the poll's perspective. The scenario you describe above is what I would think of as one encounter or one combat, with the opportunity to defeat the enemy in detail if you're stealthy and clever. Conversely, you can defeat them all at the same time with a suitable-placed Meteor Swarm, even the ones who are still sleeping/outside/putting their armor on/etc. As a DM, everyone I'm tracking both onscreen and offscreen as a potential combatant is part of the same "combat."