D&D General 6-8 encounters (combat?)

[GMforPowergamers]

So I keep hearing how the best way to balance the game is a 6-8 encounter adventuring day for every adventuring day... putting aside that I feel that is way too gamest and unrealistic... does this mean combat? or does it mean all 3 pillars?

We all agree three is more to combat then the other two pillars, but how much?


I think about it and the fighter does his best work in fights. so if it really was meant to balance the casters it would almost HAVE to have more combat then anything else.

 

[HammerMan]

If it isn’t any combination then that means it’s not balanced

Not that I believe it IS balanced

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"Can" go? Any way you like. The Fun Police have a standing order not to interfere with 5e games, it's part of the contract WotC signed after the incidents of Fun Police raiding tables for actually roleplaying while playing The Edition That Shall Not Be Named.

Now, if what you mean is "should" go, in the sense of "what was the game designed for"? The first option. It's the only one that actually keeps stuff like the Champion Fighter vaguely in line with something like the Paladin, to say nothing of full casters (other than Warlocks.)

Every non-combat encounter that pushes you below 6 combats per adventuring day (which is already the absolute ragged edge of things lining up mathematically, being very generous about what "lining up" means) causes spellcasting characters to pull ahead of non-spellcasting characters, especially those that are totally rest-agnostic. (If you have 5 encounters a day, but have a short rest after every single encounter, then at least Battle Masters can keep up with the Paladin; Champions are still left in the dust though.)

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Six to eight encounters does not mean all combat encounters. The balance between the PCs blazing through an encounter and having a near-TPK is very precarious in 5E. The 6-8 encounters a day suggestion is because the safest way to challenge your players is to nibble at their ressources (hit points, spell slots, features, hit dices, etc) through challenges. These challenges can be combat, traps, puzzles or even social encounters. The point is that you don't have to play the balancing game I described above and can instead have a fairly regular encounter that will be challenging because your PCs won't have many resources left.

This is the same reason why the encounter building rules are so infamously bad. In standard circumstances your party should easily blast through en counter considered deadly by the encounter building rules. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that an encounter has a fixed difficulty for a game balanced around attrition. The same encounter will not be as difficult at the start and end of the day. So, from my readings, it seem like most people will consider a deadly encounter as "deadly in the wrong circumstances".

I don't follow the 6-8 encounters guidelines and I find ways to make the 1-3 encounters a day relevant, fun and not too harsh to balance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't follow the 6-8 encounters guidelines and I find ways to make the 1-3 encounters a day relevant, fun and not too harsh to balance.

Have you had any Champions in your games? How do you deal with the issue that their (only!) damage bonus comes from a higher rate of critical hits, which means they need to make many more attacks to actually benefit?

I've done the math. You need something like 12-20 (depending on level) combat rounds between short rests to keep up with something like the Battle Master, and certainly much more than that over the course of the day in order to keep up with a Paladin.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I keep hearing how the best way to balance the game is a 6-8 encounter adventuring day for every adventuring day... putting aside that I feel that is way too gamest and unrealistic... does this mean combat? or does it mean all 3 pillars?

I treat all encounters as "encounters", it doesn't matter to me which pillar it is. But then again, I also grant XP for role-playing.

We all agree three is more to combat then the other two pillars, but how much?

There is certainly "more to combat" because that is the pillar that has the most support when it comes to rules, etc.

However, if you mean that more encounters are combat than exploration or social, that is often the case IME, but I don't care about that balance personally.

I think about it and the fighter does his best work in fights. so if it really was meant to balance the casters it would almost HAVE to have more combat then anything else.

I agree to a point, but it depends on the encounter and how casters also handle it. Are casters using spells? If so, then martials need encounters to handle via their features (e.g. fighting or whatever). However, if casters are handling encounters through skills, then martials can do the same.

For example, in our session tonight, I had an exploration encounter (handled via skills and saves), a combat encounter, and then three social encounters (handled via skills and role-play).

Ultimately, I don't care at all about the number of encounters during an "adventuring day". IMO the concept is ludicrous. The narrative drives the number of encounters and when PCs can get in a rest. Since players never know when an encounter will take place or how many there might be before they can rest, they have to play conservatively much of the time. If they nova too much, they'll get burned eventually. It is a balancing act, really, but as long as it is dictated by the story, the balance is self-enforced IME.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I also grant XP for role-playing.

me too... in my curse of strahd game I gave 1,000 xp each for RPing through the encounter with madam eva, and then 500xp each time they get a good (it doesn't even have to be right) idea where a treasure is based on the reading... and they just got 2,500xp each for recruiting there fated ally.

I agree to a point, but it depends on the encounter and how casters also handle it. Are casters using spells? If so, then martials need encounters to handle via their features (e.g. fighting or whatever). However, if casters are handling encounters through skills, then martials can do the same.

yeah but that is an issue too... if we have 3 encounters that everyone (caster and noncasters) use skills quick thinking and RP to get through then those 3 encounters don't cost any resources... so even an 8 encounter day is only useing the resources of a 5 encounter day.

For example, in our session tonight, I had an exploration encounter (handled via skills and saves), a combat encounter, and then three social encounters (handled via skills and role-play).

sound like fun

 

[Gadget]

Well, the 6-8 encounters guideline is for encounters that eat up resources; so if an exploration or social encounter consumes hitpoints, spell slots, or limited use abilities--it's all good. However, I think we've all seen games or tables where PCs will hoard such abilities and resources for combat encounters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

yeah but that is an issue too... if we have 3 encounters that everyone (caster and noncasters) use skills quick thinking and RP to get through then those 3 encounters don't cost any resources... so even an 8 encounter day is only useing the resources of a 5 encounter day.

But how is it an issue? So what if they only use resources on 5 out of 8 encounters? The resources are there to be used or not as needed, aren't they? Nothing says resources need to be exhausted prior to resting.

Most of the time, PCs in my games will have resources left over when they finish a long rest. This is because the players have learned to keep resources "in the tank" so to say because they NEVER really know if there will be another encounter before they finish resting or not.

This is why I prefer encounters based on the narrative. In tonight's session, the players began with their long rest because of where we left off last time. IIRC the Cleric had two 1st-level slots, the Druid a 1st-level slot, the Sorcerer had a 1st-level slot and a sorcery point, the Warlock had two slots (having finished a "short rest" during the long rest prior to play starting), the Paladin had two 1st-level slots, and the Barbarian had one rage remaining. Now, this was after finishing a traveling for a day and dealing with two combat encounters in the prior session.

So, the PCs dealt with the exploration challenge to find a place to rest, dealt with the combat during the 3rd watch, had to move to a new location and entered a keep, had two social encounters, had to restart their long rest due to all the interruptions, and then had a final social encounter before ending the session.

As resources dwindle, the need to rest becomes greater and greater because the relative strength of the party continues to decrease. But by having rests happen when it fits the story, it is more organic and real, less "gamey" IMO.

sound like fun

Over all yes, but two of the five players were definitely more out of the loop than the other three. However, I know this is more because those two players enjoy combat more, while two of the three others enjoy role-playing more. Last session was more exploration and combat, this one more social. I try the best I can to keep things balanced in the sense of keeping it all interesting to players so they enjoy themselves more.

However, I don't worry at all about balance as far as encounters are concerned. Sometimes encounters are cakewalks, other times the PCs need to retreat. Some adventures have a chain of combats, making rest impossible and the situation becomes desperate. Other adventures involve a single combat or none for several days in a row. Exploration is harder IME unless you want to track things like food, exhaustion, etc. which I know a lot of groups don't. I don't mind tracking it and having players make rolls for exhaustion. Last time I ran RotFM, a PC died due to exposure to the cold (I house-rule cold weather clothing grants advantage on checks vs. cold exhaustion, not immunity to it!).

 

[Dausuul]

Well, the 6-8 encounters guideline is for encounters that eat up resources; so if an exploration or social encounter consumes hitpoints, spell slots, or limited use abilities--it's all good. However, I think we've all seen games or tables where PCs will hoard such abilities and resources for combat encounters.

That generally happens when they perceive the stakes of exploration and social encounters to be lower.

When exploration encounters can be as lethal as combat (traps, terrain hazards), and blowing a social encounter means being dropped into a combat encounter at very bad odds, PCs are a lot more willing to burn resources on them.