D&D 5E How many encounters per day is YOUR average?

[clearstream]

1-4 is the most common, probably leaning toward 1 or 2. with very likely chance of a short rest after every encounter.

2-5 contains more of the range.

 

[Blue]

I didn't create this thread because I'm personally have pacing problems when running games. My reason for posting this is that I've never played in a game that had the recommended number of combats as presented in the DMG and it seems like the developers balanced things around a sense of pacing that most people just do not follow, from my experience. I've never been in a game with more than 4 combats in a day, and it's generally a lot less. I'm running a rune knight in a campaign now and we're at level 7 and I've i played all of the way through Rime of the Frost Maiden from level 1 to finish with a fighter -> RK. After getting the subclass at level 3, I have yet to participate in a 5e fight as a rune knight where I did not have Giant's Might up and it's a power you only get twice a day to start out. I'm curious if they tried to balance the game around a pacing structure that (most?) tables do no follow.

Here's something I wrote upthread:

Most DMs run fewer encounters. The issue isn't that the majority of DMs are running the game wrong, it's that the designers estimated incorrectly how many encounters they would have, increasing it sharply from what earlier editions were. The mis-calibration is on the designers.

I strongly feel that it was an intentional choice the designers made, since it increased so sharply from previous editions, and it is one that is out of touch with how people run. And for the most part with how they write adventures as well.

 

[NaturalZero]

Here's something I wrote upthread:

I strongly feel that it was an intentional choice the designers made, since it increased so sharply from previous editions, and it is one that is out of touch with how people run. And for the most part with how they write adventures as well.

I think the trend is exacerbated by live play streams too. When I moved across the country and tried to find a fresh group at the local store, I was surprised that literally every new player at the table said that Critical Role was what got them to show up. If new folks are watching live play, their examples of play never really include more than 2 combats a day, tops.

On the hand, all of my other groups are old hand and they never ran a lot of combats per day before, so they never upped the pace when converting to 5e.

 

[ad_hoc]

How many people are answering the question as 'per session' rather than 'per adventuring day'?

 

[cmad1977]

How many people are answering the question as 'per session' rather than 'per adventuring day'?

And how many people think an “encounter” means a “fight”.

 

[el-remmen]

The only question that really matters to me about this stuff is "How many encounters make sense for what the PCs do/where they go in a given amount of time?" While it depends on the environment, the PCs have a lot of say in how many encounters they have (or avoid) based on their actions.

 

[Stalker0]

So to keep in mind, though I am happy to see a poll, the poll with this many options will need many more responses before it will tell us anything definitive. Right now the margin of error is much too high to draw conclusions.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My experience has been that, regardless of how many encounters actually happen, if the players generally assume there might be more encounters later, the game is balanced enough, which is about as good as 5e gets in terms of balance. It's a robust system, which means it's rarely as precise as a more tightly made system could be.

Even if you don't use multiple encounters every day, or even most days, if you use them often enough that your table is in the habit of conserving resources, it seems to work out. If players are in the habit of blowing all their resources every fight and expecting a rest right after, things fall apart, and you really can't just change the individual encounters to fix this.

 

[FrogReaver]

My experience has been that, regardless of how many encounters actually happen, if the players generally assume there might be more encounters later, the game is balanced enough, which is about as good as 5e gets in terms of balance. It's a robust system, which means it's rarely as precise as a more tightly made system could be.

Even if you don't use multiple encounters every day, or even most days, if you use them often enough that your table is in the habit of conserving resources, it seems to work out. If players are in the habit of blowing all their resources every fight and expecting a rest right after, things fall apart, and you really can't just change the individual encounters to fix this.

But as I demonstrated above, all the classes blowing resources as fast as they can still come out about equal in a single encounter day (Maybe this changes in late tier 3/4).

 

[jmartkdr2]

But as I demonstrated above, all the classes blowing resources as fast as they can still come out about equal in a single encounter day (Maybe this changes in late tier 3/4).

It really changes at high levels, where I've been for the past year in most of my games. A wizard spending a 7th 8th and 9th level spell in a single encounter might not do a lot more damage than a fighter, but it doesn't matter because the wizard negated the need for damage in the first place by bypassing the need to fight.

But if I don't know there isn't another threat to hold ammo for, I just don't do that. And things work out in the end.