Is default number of encounters per day in 5E it's biggest flaw?

[sithlordnergal]

I actually found a really good fix for DMs that are having problems with players who always want to rest, be it long rests or short rests. Now, it does require you to be able mentally keep track of approximately how many resources players have used, but that isn't as hard as it sounds.

The method is that you decide when players get the benefits of any sort of resting. If you feel the players are trying to long rest too much, you inform them that they will not gain the benefits of a long rest at this time. If the players short rest too much, you do the same thing.

It allows the DM to have a bit more control of the adventuring day, makes it easier to have multiple encounters between long and short rests, and, once you get good at tracking player resources, it makes short and long rest classes easier to balance between each other.

[bc56]

In general, I've found that players are fairly reasonable about rests. If you don't try to force them to rest or not to rest, they'll usually rest when they need to.

If they start trying the 15-minute workday, then you have to start telling them when they can and can't rest, or imposing penalties for resting. The best ways to do that are to say that you can only take long rests so often, say at nightfall, or giving time-sensitive objectives that extra long rests would significantly hamper.

[MaxWilson]

This wasn't intended as a commentary on anybody's DMing style. I just wanted to know the actual range of encounters per day that fit within the xp budget given in the DMG if no encounter goes over the minimum threshold for deadly or under the minimum for easy.

But that's my point--those numbers are only correct if you assume that DMs are using just-barely-Easy as their Easy standard encounter, and just-barely-Medium as their Medium standard. If you want accurate numbers it makes more sense to take the average Easy/Medium/Hard encounter as typical instead of the easiest-possible Easy/Medium/Hard encounter.

And if you do that you wind up with about ten and a half Easy encounters per long rest at maximum (third level), not sixteen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is not much more encouraging of 5 min workday than Sorcs already are, they can burn through most of their allotance with preparation and 3 rounds of combat if they want too.

But now everyone can be a sorcerer and burn through all their resources fast!

[Pex]

1. No more SR, everything is LR-based (or at will). This was what 3e did. The (much worse) 5-minute working day was the result. And that's horrible for the story aspect--much worse than having an hour break here and there. This also encourages novas, which leaves out those who can't nova. Or if you do the SRx3 resource hack, you end up with warlocks being able to nova harder than anyone. No wins here.

I see this as a player problem, not a system problem. Players need to learn to conserve their stuff, and DMs need to learn pacing. The 5 minute day problem can happen in 5E just as well. If each gaming session has only one combat and a long rest at the end that's the same thing no matter how many in game days happen with all the dramatic role playing you want.

[Max_Killjoy]

But now everyone can be a sorcerer and burn through all their resources fast!

For me, at least, I was looking at one very particular thought experiment Class, an INT half-caster, not changing any of the existing Classes.

[Pex]

Those adventures are fine, but they're only memorable when they're the exception, not the rule. If every (or even most) quest is on such a rushed timeline, then you should use the Heroic Rest variant instead. That's what it's there for.

Total bias on my part.

Your point is valid, but I think DMs are reluctant to use the Heroic Rest variant because it feels too easy for players. They use their stuff and get it back so quickly there's no resource management to worry about. There's no tension, little risk, and feels too gamey. It seems like the players are getting away with something they shouldn't or haven't earned.

Anecdotal, but ever since 5E came out I think you are first person I've read to have made any post here recommending someone use the Heroic Rest variant. I only recall once a couple of years ago of it even being mentioned in a post.

[JoeJ]

But that's my point--those numbers are only correct if you assume that DMs are using just-barely-Easy as their Easy standard encounter, and just-barely-Medium as their Medium standard. If you want accurate numbers it makes more sense to take the average Easy/Medium/Hard encounter as typical instead of the easiest-possible Easy/Medium/Hard encounter.

And if you do that you wind up with about ten and a half Easy encounters per long rest at maximum (third level), not sixteen.

But I didn't want numbers that some hypothetical typical DM might use. I wanted the full range of encounter numbers encompassed by these rules. IOW, how may encounters of each category can a DM run while still staying within the daily xp allowance.

Also, I had to use the minimum threshold for deadly encounters, because that's the only number given for this level of difficulty (yeah, I could just pull a different number out of my a**, but if I did that there would be little point in doing the calculations at all). And I figure that if I'm using the minimum threshold for one category, I ought to be consistent and use it for all of them.

[MaxWilson]

But I didn't want numbers that some hypothetical typical DM might use. I wanted the full range of encounter numbers encompassed by these rules. IOW, how may encounters of each category can a DM run while still staying within the daily xp allowance.

Then at minimum you need to be careful when communicating your results. When you say this:

I divided the expected average xp per day by the encounter difficulty thresholds at each level. The number of encounters needed to meet the daily average varies slightly from level to levels, so I took the mean.

By this measure, if all encounters are deadly there should be an average of 2.9 encounters per adventure day (a low of 2.6 at levels 12, 13, and 14, and a high of 3.4 at level 4). If all encounters are easy, there should be an average of 13.2 encounters per adventure day (a low of 11.5 at level 12, and a high of 16.0 at level 3). In actual play, most days should have a mix of encounter difficulties, so the number of encounters necessary to reach the average daily xp will be somewhere between these extremes.

you make it look like you are saying that 13.2 encounters will fit in the budget as long as they are easy--and that's not accurate. Maybe you mean, "There absolutely cannot be more than 13.2 Easy encounters per day or you will go over budget even with the easiest-possible Easy encounters." The way you actually reported your results is likely to make anyone who relies on them accidentally break their budget. It's less misleading to use the median XP value in the computation instead of the minimum threshold.

Anyway, that horse is now dead, so I'll stop beating it.

/End

[Unoriginal]

I actually found a really good fix for DMs that are having problems with players who always want to rest, be it long rests or short rests. Now, it does require you to be able mentally keep track of approximately how many resources players have used, but that isn't as hard as it sounds.

The method is that you decide when players get the benefits of any sort of resting. If you feel the players are trying to long rest too much, you inform them that they will not gain the benefits of a long rest at this time. If the players short rest too much, you do the same thing.

It allows the DM to have a bit more control of the adventuring day, makes it easier to have multiple encounters between long and short rests, and, once you get good at tracking player resources, it makes short and long rest classes easier to balance between each other.

That has been said, yes. The DM decides if the PCs are capable of resting. If the PCs want to stand around doing nothing when they don't get any benefit from it, then it's still their choice.

[Rhedyn]

That has been said, yes. The DM decides if the PCs are capable of resting. If the PCs want to stand around doing nothing when they don't get any benefit from it, then it's still their choice.

That's basically admitting the encounter pacing is a huge problem in the game if you have to constantly adjust the resource recovery rate in a game where combat is mainly about resource management.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's basically admitting the encounter pacing is a huge problem in the game if you have to constantly adjust the resource recovery rate in a game where combat is mainly about resource management.

Or that variable things are variable. Which they are. Trying to enforce consistency in such an environment causes its own set of problems no matter what rules you enforce. And most of the time it handles itself as the fiction suggests. It's only in exceptional cases (which usually mean you're using the system outside its design specs) that you have to step in.

[Skylivedk]

Great argument against long rests, but everyone in all those situations take short rests. How long can boxers go before they are exhausted? Why do you think soldiers in war are any different?

Soldiers don't do an hour's rest in combat, neither do boxers.

This has all the problems with encouraging 5-minute working days, plus a bunch of balancing issues. Because not all spells of the same "level" are equal. It's also a lot more work to track.

I should be clear. I haven't found one that I really like. The Law of Conservation of Annoyance is in full effect here--the only real differences are in which parts are annoying.

And as for the idea of taking SRx3 = total resources but then limiting the number you can use in a combat (posted above):

For me it's the worst of all worlds.
1) it's totally arbitrary at that point and doesn't fit the fiction in any way. It's a pure game-balance dictate.
2) It still leaves those who can't nova unable to nova while encouraging novas by removing even the idea of taking short rests and having lots of fights.
3) It's more cumbersome to track--you have to track both "how many do I have left" and "how many have I used this fight/how many can I use this fight". Simplicity is a major issue for me (and for the designers).

Interesting. I forgot to mention that HD is still a short rest (30 min).

1) I might try the rest variants next time. I liked this one better than the heroic rest to cap the amount of short rest regains. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same in terms of verisimilitude. I like that reintroducing SR and LR will allow random encounters while traveling to tax players like a dungeon and then turn up the speed dial and allow heroic rests for collapsing castles, etc.

2) hasn't been much of an issue. But in general my players live in a healthy fear of dying. Having one or two players at less than 10 hp, the rest rolling death saves, at the end of the climatic encounter is my DM trademark by now

3) it's one of the least mechanically oriented players who play the monk in one of the two campaigns where we test it. He's had no complaints so far; quite the opposite. His notation is like this
MAX Encounter/LR.
SPEND

At the end of an encounter he subtracts the used from the LR

[Skylivedk]

Or that variable things are variable. Which they are. Trying to enforce consistency in such an environment causes its own set of problems no matter what rules you enforce. And most of the time it handles itself as the fiction suggests. It's only in exceptional cases (which usually mean you're using the system outside its design specs) that you have to step in.

I have a hard time agreeing with this point. If all classes had long rest and short rest powers mixed (I guess like 4e, haven't played it- or 13th age which I have at least read), it wouldn't be an issue. The design specs are specifically what's being criticized, so naturally that's a yes: the frustration being that the system without variants lead to very samey drama curves or sessions where one part of players or the other is bored/has limited access to class defining features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Soldiers don't do an hour's rest in combat, neither do boxers.


Interesting. I forgot to mention that HD is still a short rest (30 min).

1) I might try the rest variants next time. I liked this one better than the heroic rest to cap the amount of short rest regains. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same in terms of verisimilitude. I like that reintroducing SR and LR will allow random encounters while traveling to tax players like a dungeon and then turn up the speed dial and allow heroic rests for collapsing castles, etc.

2) hasn't been much of an issue. But in general my players live in a healthy fear of dying. Having one or two players at less than 10 hp, the rest rolling death saves, at the end of the climatic encounter is my DM trademark by now

3) it's one of the least mechanically oriented players who play the monk in one of the two campaigns where we test it. He's had no complaints so far; quite the opposite. His notation is like this
MAX Encounter/LR.
SPEND

At the end of an encounter he subtracts the used from the LR

I have a hard time agreeing with this point. If all classes had long rest and short rest powers mixed (I guess like 4e, haven't played it- or 13th age which I have at least read), it wouldn't be an issue. The design specs are specifically what's being criticized, so naturally that's a yes: the frustration being that the system without variants lead to very samey drama curves or sessions where one part of players or the other is bored/has limited access to class defining features.

I'm very not fond of #2 as a play-style (except as an exception). This isn't role-playing fantasy Vietnam (as I heard someone say). That kind of thing breeds PTSD real real fast. And if every (or even most) fight is that way, you're most likely not going to survive (or it will be very obvious that you're fudging things) just on sheer probability grounds.

But that's (the new stuff) only a problem if you run your games that way. I have to say I've never seen this issue once I said "remember you can take short rests" once. That is, outside organized play it requires a particular non-standard play-style for it to be a problem in the first place. People naturally take short rests and long rests where they fall unless you give incentives not to.

[JoeJ]

Soldiers don't do an hour's rest in combat, neither do boxers.

So soldiers in combat can't spend hit dice to recover hp or use action surge or use second wind more than once each, and their superiority dice don't recharge until there's a lull in the fighting. That... sounds reasonable to me.

[MaxWilson]

I'm very not fond of #2 as a play-style (except as an exception). This isn't role-playing fantasy Vietnam (as I heard someone say). That kind of thing breeds PTSD real real fast. And if every (or even most) fight is that way, you're most likely not going to survive (or it will be very obvious that you're fudging things) just on sheer probability grounds.

That's what makes high-level adventurers famous (and rare)--they have done the highly-improbable, often.

I can't stand games where reaching high level is par for the course.

[Xetheral]

But that's (the new stuff) only a problem if you run your games that way. I have to say I've never seen this issue once I said "remember you can take short rests" once. That is, outside organized play it requires a particular non-standard play-style for it to be a problem in the first place. People naturally take short rests and long rests where they fall unless you give incentives not to.

I think one thing discussions like this can show is that there is such a diversity of playstyles that none of them can truly to be said to be "standard".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think one thing discussions like this can show is that there is such a diversity of playstyles that none of them can truly to be said to be "standard".

Going without short rests (what I was responding to) is decidedly non-standard by the designer's standards. Which is what counts when we're talking about the design of the rules. If you're complaining about how badly your pitchfork works as a teaspoon, maybe the problem is that you're using a pitchfork as a teaspoon in the first place and you should re-think that?

[ad_hoc]

I think one thing discussions like this can show is that there is such a diversity of playstyles that none of them can truly to be said to be "standard".

Keep in mind that this board represents a very very small part of the 5e player base.

For example, AL can't be more than around 1% of 5e players and yet many people here play in AL.

[Skylivedk]

So soldiers in combat can't spend hit dice to recover hp or use action surge or use second wind more than once each, and their superiority dice don't recharge until there's a lull in the fighting. That... sounds reasonable to me.

If HD represents stamina as well, then yes. I was referring to the length; an hour is a looooong time in hostile territory.

I'm very not fond of #2 as a play-style (except as an exception). This isn't role-playing fantasy Vietnam (as I heard someone say). That kind of thing breeds PTSD real real fast. And if every (or even most) fight is that way, you're most likely not going to survive (or it will be very obvious that you're fudging things) just on sheer probability grounds.

But that's (the new stuff) only a problem if you run your games that way. I have to say I've never seen this issue once I said "remember you can take short rests" once. That is, outside organized play it requires a particular non-standard play-style for it to be a problem in the first place. People naturally take short rests and long rests where they fall unless you give incentives not to.

I wrote climatic for a reason :) it's far from every session (and I also consider myself lucky for having it happen a couple of times; that doesn't change the reputation though).

I've tried a couple of times referring to official published adventures where the adventuring days are not in line with recommendations for how to tax a group. I didn't make up the rules at random. It was a direct effect of playing Storm King's Thunder and the group finding the battlemaster and the monk not being on par in their collective experience.

As a DM, and a player, I want my friends and co-players to have fun above all. Maybe flex their creative muscles a bit as well. We didn't have the issue in the previous campaign where everything was designed from the ground up by me.

Going without short rests (what I was responding to) is decidedly non-standard by the designer's standards. Which is what counts when we're talking about the design of the rules. If you're complaining about how badly your pitchfork works as a teaspoon, maybe the problem is that you're using a pitchfork as a teaspoon in the first place and you should re-think that?

And I think the criticism is that it would have been great if the game allowed for more versatile play styles without a number of classes suffering as a result. As in: I'd much rather have a knife than a pitchfork of I can only choose one tool to get by with. Or a Leatherman Multitool. Or a green ring that allows me to shape light in durable shapes. But y'know... Analogies. Can't discuss and have fun without then, can't necessarily make much sense with them ;)

[ad_hoc]

And I think the criticism is that it would have been great if the game allowed for more versatile play styles without a number of classes suffering as a result. As in: I'd much rather have a knife than a pitchfork of I can only choose one tool to get by with. Or a Leatherman Multitool. Or a green ring that allows me to shape light in durable shapes. But y'know... Analogies. Can't discuss and have fun without then, can't necessarily make much sense with them ;)

I think that would result in a worse game. I'd rather a game have a vision and be the best version of that vision rather than try to be a catchall and be mediocre at everything.

I think multiclassing, for example, makes the game worse because that is something the designers need to consider when creating classes and subclasses. It is one of the last things they think about but it is still there.

[ChiefBigFeather]

I really like the gritty realism rules. They suit non dungeon focused adventuring very well.

[Xetheral]

Going without short rests (what I was responding to) is decidedly non-standard by the designer's standards. Which is what counts when we're talking about the design of the rules. If you're complaining about how badly your pitchfork works as a teaspoon, maybe the problem is that you're using a pitchfork as a teaspoon in the first place and you should re-think that?

For a playstyle to ever be considered standard I think it would need to be shared by a majority (or at least a very large plurality) of the player base. The designers can try to influence playstyle with what they write in the rulebooks, but they have no power to unilaterally set standards for how people play the game. (Nor do I think they have any intention to.)

From my standpoint, D&D is the individual games played around the world, in all their myriad shapes and sizes. The game isn't the words in the rulebooks--those are just a tool. Like any tool, it is fair to consider how well those words meet the needs of those who want to use them.

Keep in mind that this board represents a very very small part of the 5e player base.

For example, AL can't be more than around 1% of 5e players and yet many people here play in AL.

If a small sample size shows incredible variation, it is highly unlikely (although still technically possible) that the broader population is anywhere close to uniform.

[JoeJ]

I really like the gritty realism rules. They suit non dungeon focused adventuring very well.

There's no reason you can't use gritty realism when the PCs are traveling in the wilderness, regular resting in town and most dungeons, and epic heroism when they invade the BBEG's fortress at the climax of the campaign. Just admit up front that you're being cinematic rather than realistic, and don't worry about the mental gymnastics of trying to justify it on any other grounds.

[ad_hoc]

If a small sample size shows incredible variation, it is highly unlikely (although still technically possible) that the broader population is anywhere close to uniform.

We're talking about a sample size of 20ish tables vs the 15+ million 5e players.

This board represents an extreme outlier. Nothing here is indicative of the 5e player base.

[Tanarii]

This wasn't intended as a commentary on anybody's DMing style. I just wanted to know the actual range of encounters per day that fit within the xp budget given in the DMG if no encounter goes over the minimum threshold for deadly or under the minimum for easy.

For the majority of levels, it's roughly 12 Easy, 6 Medium, 4.5 Hard, or 3 Deadly.

At some levels it spiked up to 8 medium.

It's not really 6-8 medium or hard. That sentence in the DMG does not match the table. People really need to stop quoting it all the time. Unless we want to assume the table is wrong instead.

I see this as a player problem, not a system problem. Players need to learn to conserve their stuff, and DMs need to learn pacing. The 5 minute day problem can happen in 5E just as well. If each gaming session has only one combat and a long rest at the end that's the same thing no matter how many in game days happen with all the dramatic role playing you want.

Yeah, I didn't really have the 5mwd problem in 3e either. Nor 2e, 1e, or classic.

There's no reason you can't use gritty realism when the PCs are traveling in the wilderness, regular resting in town and most dungeons, and epic heroism when they invade the BBEG's fortress at the climax of the campaign. Just admit up front that you're being cinematic rather than realistic, and don't worry about the mental gymnastics of trying to justify it on any other grounds.

I tried it. It works okay.

[Xetheral]

We're talking about a sample size of 20ish tables vs the 15+ million 5e players.

This board represents an extreme outlier. Nothing here is indicative of the 5e player base.

If you have a drawer of 15 million socks of unknown colors, and you draw 20 at random, and all 20 are different colors, what are the odds that a majority of those 15 million are the same color? No greater than 1 in 2^19. That's a little worse than 1 in half a million, and it's only that high with very generous assumptions about the color distribution of the non-majority socks.

Of course, we aren't a random sample here. It's possible that the very thing that leads us all to post on a forum also makes all of us have playstyles that diverge both from each other and from a common playstyle shared by a majority of the player base. But I contend it's more likely that the heterogeneity seen in the sample of people who post on these forums reflects a heterogeneity of the player base at large.

[MeeposFire]

For the majority of levels, it's roughly 12 Easy, 6 Medium, 4.5 Hard, or 3 Deadly.

At some levels it spiked up to 8 medium.

It's not really 6-8 medium or hard. That sentence in the DMG does not match the table. People really need to stop quoting it all the time. Unless we want to assume the table is wrong instead.


Yeah, I didn't really have the 5mwd problem in 3e either. Nor 2e, 1e, or classic.


I tried it. It works okay.

It would be hard to do a 5 minute work day in 1e since it took so long to get spells back at higher levels. It was also rarer in the per 3e editions since back then warrior types were a pretty big deal and they would keep you going. Where you may see this change is in 3e especially if you were in a group that decided that they did not want to go the traditional route of having 1 or more warrior types around. This was doable in 3e due to numerous mechanics that make it much easier to eliminate all class roles using just spell casters. This was also boosted by the use of easy access to wands and those wands being able to extend caster resources further (you can cheaply buy a wand of cure light wounds, or even better less vigor, and use that to heal the party without having to use your personal spell slots and generally you make more on an adventure then it takes to get those 50 charges back because those wands become stupid cheap fairly quickly). If you did not have such a group (my personal group did not try to play this way at least most of the time) then you would be less likely to see 5 minute work day since the more warriors and the like you have the less desire you would have to do a 5 minute day. The more casters there are the more you are tempted to do it (assuming you do not have a clock to push you of course).

I do find it takes a certain type of player to want to go for the 5MWD and in order to make it happen you need more than one or at least several people willing ot make that happen combined with a DM that is going to essentially let that happen.

In 4e you did not have to do it and it really would be overkill to do the 5 minute day. Your encounter powers were enough to carry most of an encounter by themselves you really did not need to use more than 1 daily in a major encounter unless it was a REALLY dangerous encounter.

[Corran]

From a roleplay standpoint its completely unrealistic for your characters to be rolling through multiple encounters without stopping to catch their breath, stretching, conspiring their next move, bandaging their wounds, and eating some trail mix. Are you roleplaying adventurers or robots?

Let's see. The characters enter the goblin underground base. They go through 2 encounters with goblins and emerge victorious, but they have taken some beating themselves as well. Mechanically speaking, the characters would certainly profit from a short rest. They know that they haven't defeated all the goblins, and they have certainly not accomplished the mission, which is to defeat the goblin shaman and retrieve the magical staff he has stolen. But at this point, in the state they are in, they are less certain they can suceed than they were when they were entering the dungeon. From a roleplaying standpoint, what is more realistic?

A) Roleplay (or explore) the morale of your character and propose and/or commit to continuing or retreating either indefinitely or just for the time being?

B) Go back to town to have a cup of tea and come back for round 2?

C) Go to that one small room you found, get in there, barricade it, sit there for about an hour, eat a ration, drink a healing potion, have the bard sing a song, and then pick up from where you left off?


Spending a few moments to catch your breath or patch up your wounds is far different to a short rest, at the very least timewise. Not taking a short rest does not mean that the characters shout ''CHARGE!'' after an encounter ended and while they are immediately rushing to the next. And the decision to take or not take a short rest is as much influenced by the situation the pc's are in just as much by their resources' status. I am all for trying to rationalize (or even fluff) a short rest at times when perhaps it isn't the most realistic/ narratively appropriate course of action, but let's not pretend that taking a short rest is somehow the definition of roleplaying standards.