D&D General Is WotC's 5E D&D easy? Trust me this isn't what you think... maybe

[tetrasodium]

Once you get to higher levels, you should add an s to that dozen. And use the daily allotment of exp. If a party can fight 240 goblins in a day, 8 encounters of 30 goblins each would be a slog. But 2 encounters of 120 goblins each may not be.

That bold bit is the problem. 5e designed for a thought experiment that would result in brain leaking from the ears levels of slog juxtaposed with an immediate encounter delete if the gm ever inflicts it on their poor unfortunate players

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree. I run 2-3 encounters a day, up to 4 at most. I've never had an issue with swinginess, and my encounters are such that people often get their spotlight and feel cool.

I mean, that’s great for you and your group, but you literally said “experienced DMs shouldn’t be running balanced encounters.” Well, I’m here to tell you, balanced encounters work perfectly fine, if you run enough of them, as the rules say to do.

I honestly, truly believe that if you do 6-8 medium encounters, you are running a boring combat game and you aren't actually playing the system to its strengths.

Please don’t call my games boring when you’ve never even played in them. This is extremely rude, and I am actually insulted, which is pretty rare for me.

5E is surprisingly (and imo, unintendedly) good at making players think they will die when they actually aren't in mortal danger, so long as you don't run balanced encounters.

It’s also unsurprisingly (and explicitly intentionally) good at making players feel both powerful and meaningfully challenged when you do run the number of balanced encounters the rules recommend.

 

[Shardstone]

I mean, that’s great for you and your group, but you literally said “experienced DMs shouldn’t be running balanced encounters.” Well, I’m here to tell you, balanced encounters work perfectly fine, if you run enough of them, as the rules say to do.

Please don’t call my games boring when you’ve never even played in them. This is extremely rude, and I am actually insulted, which is pretty rare for me.

It’s also unsurprisingly (and explicitly intentionally) good at making players feel both powerful and meaningfully challenged when you do run the number of balanced encounters the rules recommend.

I wasn't calling your games boring, and I apologize for how I phrased it; I was speaking in a "general you" not a "specific you." Likewise, my comment on experienced DMs wasn't meant to be taken as absolute, though I did nothing to highlight that. Sorry again for the offense!

EDIT: To clarify, I don't think running 6-8 encounters is a bad time from every table, and I personally believe that there are many ways of playing D&D that are just as fun (if not more so) then the way I play D&D, even if I can't imagine them or don't participate in them myself.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That bold bit is the problem. 5e designed for a thought experiment that would result in brain leaking from the ears levels of slog juxtaposed with an immediate encounter delete if the gm ever inflicts it on their poor unfortunate players

The 8 encounter day is supposed to represent the resource management and risk assessment of D&D? I imagine it's supposed to be a press your luck style game. Or like in Darkest Dungeon??

Do people not like resource attrition/management???

 

[el-remmen]

Personally, if I had to be counting "encounters per day" to challenge the PCs I'd feel like something was wrong with the game. I just run however many encounters make sense for the in-game situation and based on PC choices. It has always worked for me. And while I believe and accept that it doesn't work for everyone, I continue to be confused by it.

The most recent session of my in-person game ended with the party fleeing a battle they decided they could not win at the moment. The battle it still going, so we'll see if they actually escape. (It looks like they will.) This was the second combat encounter of the adventuring day. They took a short rest between the encounters. They have no time pressure.

In the most recent session of my remote game, we ended on a short but intense discussion about if and where a short rest could be safely taken so the PCs could spend some HD and re-gain some hit points because they were concerned about pressing on. They'd had two combat encounters and a set of challenging climbs up a subterranean stepped waterfall so far that day. They do have a time crunch and no way to return to civilization without giving up their goal.

 

[Shardstone]

Personally, if I had to be counting "encounters per day" to challenge the PCs I'd feel like something was wrong with the game. I just run however many encounters make sense for the in-game situation and based on PC choices. It has always worked for me. And while I believe and accept that it doesn't work for everyone, I continue to be confused by it.

The most recent session of my in-person game ended with the party fleeing a battle they decided they could not win at the moment. The battle it still going, so we'll see if they actually escape. (It looks like they will.) This was the second combat encounter of the adventuring day. They took a short rest between the encounters. They have no time pressure.

In the most recent session of my remote game, we ended on a short but intense discussion about if and where a short rest could be safely taken so the PCs could spend some HD and re-gain some hit points because they were concerned about pressing on. They'd had two combat encounters and a set of challenging climbs up a subterranean stepped waterfall so far that day. They do have a time crunch and no way to return to civilization without giving up their goal.

I count encounters per day because it helps me pace my sessions. I can usually only play 2, maybe 3 hours tops when I play. It's important for me to know how much of the session I plan on dedicating to combat, this being a rough amount and not an absolute due to player agency/decisions etc.

 

[Stormonu]

The 8 encounter day is supposed to represent the resource management and risk assessment of D&D? I imagine it's supposed to be a press your luck style game. Or like in Darkest Dungeon??

Do people not like resource attrition/management???

No, they don't. If given the choice, I think most players would prefer to hit every encounter at full power. It is, after all, a smart thing to want to face every point of opposition when you are at your strongest and the enemy is at its weakest. To do less is to risk unexpected defeat. The 5MWD exists because it works to the player's advantage.

As a DM, you have to push past the player's distaste for "holding back" and encourage them in some form to tough it out and be willing to continue onward without taking the opportunity to stop and recharge back to full. In essence, the DM in some way has to reward, prod or convince the group that they still have enough resources to risk make it through the gauntlet vs. stopping or pulling back and assuring they maximize their chances through superior force.

 

[lolsworth]

Wotc adventures tend to be bonkers deadly at early levels, and laughably easy from around level 5

They also tend to be written in a way that makes it hard to progress/resolve unless PCs do what they're expected to do. Which encourages making that path easier

 

[tetrasodium]

The 8 encounter day is supposed to represent the resource management and risk assessment of D&D? I imagine it's supposed to be a press your luck style game. Or like in Darkest Dungeon??

Do people not like resource attrition/management???

Because it does nothing of the sort functionally. It's a representation of resource management as designed by a polling process that ensured basically every meaningful element of resource management was removed or dialed down to irrelevance.

Only the last encounter matters with how 5e is designed and you have a big mess of you start adjusting encounter count/difficulty because the GM needs to deal with PCs on two different levels encounter per rest schedule with their own resource pool expectations and a set of rest mechanics designed to guarantee success barring fiat.

 

[Clint_L]

I seldom run more than one combat encounter in a session. Sometimes none, sometimes there's a dungeon crawl situation where there might be more. But in general, I think stories work better with fewer but more meaningful encounters. The first thing I do when I run a published adventure is strip out most of the encounters and beef up the important ones.