Encounters per Adventure day

[DireSickFish]

I am endeavoring to follow the xp budget outlined in the DMG to set up a nice "adventure day" worth of encounters. I can follow the CR rules simple enough for the challenge of monsters and things I expect them to fight. How do I factor in traps to the adventure day? They are a drain in resources and most likely will take some hp off of the party.

I've got a party of 5 level 3 PCs. They have plenty of consumable healing potions so I'm not super worried just curious on how to structure the day.

[MadBear]

I am endeavoring to follow the xp budget outlined in the DMG to set up a nice "adventure day" worth of encounters. I can follow the CR rules simple enough for the challenge of monsters and things I expect them to fight. How do I factor in traps to the adventure day? They are a drain in resources and most likely will take some hp off of the party.

I've got a party of 5 level 3 PCs. They have plenty of consumable healing potions so I'm not super worried just curious on how to structure the day.

I'm away from my book, but I'm pretty sure they just count as an encounter. I'd look at what the trap does and gauge if it's a easy, medium, hard, very hard, or deadly trap and make it appropriate to that.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Yep. Encounter =/= combat.

A room filled with traps is a challenge to be overcome and the party should get XP appropriate to that challenge if they do beat it.

The only difficult thing is figuring out how deadly your traps really are...

[DireSickFish]

Yep. Encounter =/= combat.

A room filled with traps is a challenge to be overcome and the party should get XP appropriate to that challenge if they do beat it.

The only difficult thing is figuring out how deadly your traps really are...

Oh I'm aware that an encounter doesn't need to be combat. Just trying to figure out how much of my daily xp budget it is using up.

[MadBear]

Oh I'm aware that an encounter doesn't need to be combat. Just trying to figure out how much of my daily xp budget it is using up.

without knowing the exact nature of the traps, how much damage they deal, how they might be mitigated, are the effects ongoing, etc. it's going to be impossible to help you out.

[Malifice]

Oh I'm aware that an encounter doesn't need to be combat. Just trying to figure out how much of my daily xp budget it is using up.

As much as you want.

You could have a dungeon that is predominantly traps (Tomb of Horrors) if you wanted to. The choice is yours.

Personally I find the best traps are the ones the PC's arent expecting, so I use them fairly sparingly.

[Gignere]

Don't follow the encounters per day like it was the bible. You need to be flexible, I have had a CR 2 encounter for a 5th level party of 5 that nearly resulted in a TPK. I expected them to steam roll it but no one in the party can make a DC 10 will save and the party was nearly devoured by the Giberring Horror. It was the second encounter of the day. Let's just say I quickly axed the following 2 encounters and gave them a short rest.

[Malifice]

Don't follow the encounters per day like it was the bible. You need to be flexible, I have had a CR 2 encounter for a 5th level party of 5 that nearly resulted in a TPK. I expected them to steam roll it but no one in the party can make a DC 10 will save and the party was nearly devoured by the Giberring Horror. It was the second encounter of the day. Let's just say I quickly axed the following 2 encounters and gave them a short rest.

Wow! Go Gibbering mouther!

No-one made a DC10 Wisdom save?

Doesnt that just impose the confused state on them in 5E?

[Gignere]

Wow! Go Gibbering mouther!

No-one made a DC10 Wisdom save?

Doesnt that just impose the confused state on them in 5E?

On a fail save creature rolls a d8

1 - 4 the creature does nothing, 5 or 6 moves in random direction but can't take an action, 7 or 8 creature randomly attack someone within reach. It was unbelievable, even the cleric with wis save proficiency and only needs a 3 to make the wis save failed it 3 times in a row. My whole party sat there doing nothing or running around or beating the crap out of one another for 3 rounds while I am blinding them and rolling crits on them at the same time.

[Malifice]

On a fail save creature rolls a d8

1 - 4 the creature does nothing, 5 or 6 moves in random direction but can't take an action, 7 or 8 creature randomly attack someone within reach. It was unbelievable, even the cleric with wis save proficiency and only needs a 3 to make the wis save failed it 3 times in a row. My whole party sat there doing nothing or running around or beating the crap out of one another for 3 rounds while I am blinding them and rolling crits on them at the same time.

You wouldn't expect more than 1 or 2 PCs to fall victim but all 5 repeatedly? Lucky mouther!

[Gignere]

You wouldn't expect more than 1 or 2 PCs to fall victim but all 5 repeatedly? Lucky mouther!

I didn't believe it either, but it was one of those nights where the dice gods didn't cooperate for my players. I almost TPKed a party of level 5 with a CR 2 monster. When they finally started making the saves they started to burn through their resources just to bring back the PCs that were dying, when they finally beat the mouther they had no almost no spells left and everyone was at half hit points or less.

That said I also had encounters where I thought it should be a TPK (2 x deadly) and I hope they would run away and they would just steam roll it, with barely a scratch.

[MaxWilson]

I'm away from my book, but I'm pretty sure they just count as an encounter. I'd look at what the trap does and gauge if it's a easy, medium, hard, very hard, or deadly trap and make it appropriate to that.

Unfortunately the adventuring day guidelines are built around XP and not around easy/medium/hard/very hard/deadly, so if you're trying to factor a bunch of traps into an XP budget you might as well throw out the adventuring day budget entirely and just eyeball everything, because that's basically what you're doing already.

[Malifice]

Unfortunately the adventuring day guidelines are built around XP and not around easy/medium/hard/very hard/deadly, so if you're trying to factor a bunch of traps into an XP budget you might as well throw out the adventuring day budget entirely and just eyeball everything, because that's basically what you're doing already.

There is an impicit guideline that most combat encounters should me of medium-hard difficulty.

[djreynolds]

And who came up with levels of madness? And its always the battlemaster with a polearm or the sorcerer who fails their save, "I think you should twin fireballs at your party," says the DM. I swear my rogue has lost my hit points due to friendly fire than enemy. And land sharks, whose crazy mythology do those belong to?

[gullveig]

I just give an Encounter XP based on how crippling are the trap.


A pit trap that chops a large amount of HP or can even kill a player gives a deadly encounter XP.


A poison needle trap on the door handle that is just a nuisance gives a easy encounter XP.


I do that same thing to challenges that aren't traps or combats like bribe corrupt thugs to enter just another smugglers alley is easy XP but blackmail the royal knight to give access to the king chamber is a deadly XP.

[Spore]

I do that same thing to challenges that aren't traps or combats like bribe corrupt thugs to enter just another smugglers alley is easy XP but blackmail the royal knight to give access to the king chamber is a deadly XP.

There is a line where an encounter and gained XP should end for artificially improving the difficulty of the situation in order to gain more XP. I have played several games where the heroes just farmed every possible plot advance for ressources (and later demanded XP for the task). Like enterint throught the window of a Mage's Tower, disabling the entry door trap, opening the door locks and then finding the key hidden under the door mat, all while holding the piece of paper where the local "shady dealer" sold them the keyword to disable the magical door trap.

There are groups that would demand 4x the XP (or at least a difficult encounter, because they had to make so many checks) for that. Then again this is a group where they would break into a random farmer's house in order to drink their tea.

[MrStabby]

I pretty much never do traps out of combat.

Roll a d20 and some to see how many HP are lost without decisions being made by the players is not too much fun. Everyone having all the time they need to search everywhere puts no pressure on players.

I much prefer to have traps as part of an ambush or making an environment more dangerous. If a PC wants to get up on an unstable ledge for a better shot at an enemy or the group wants to charge across the trapped bridge then the traps can have an impact on their decision and any status or HP loss has a factor in the fight.

A single arcane trap that casts slow can make an easy encounter hard. A needle trap on a door handle that imposes the poison condition gives a real edge to the enemies of the PCs.

Any trap that does damage with time enough for a hurt player to heal up isn't actually a threat unless it kills them. I wouldn't give XP for traps unless they are part of a fight OR the adventure is so highly time pressured that renewable resources used to heal any damage are not renewed during the day.

[JoeJ]

There is an impicit guideline that most combat encounters should me of medium-hard difficulty.

What? No there isn't. You're mistaking an example for a recommendation.

[Malifice]

What? No there isn't. You're mistaking an example for a recommendation.

I disagree; it's implicitly a recommendation. You could instead jump from deadly to easy encounters for your 6-8 encounter AD but that sounds much more swingy. You leap from fighting a grim battle against a TPK one minute to a cakewalk the next and then back to a potential TPK in the space of 15 minutes.

[JoeJ]

I disagree; it's implicitly a recommendation. You could instead jump from deadly to easy encounters for your 6-8 encounter AD but that sounds much more swingy. You leap from fighting a grim battle against a TPK one minute to a cakewalk the next and then back to a potential TPK in the space of 15 minutes.

If you use them that way it is swingy, but so what? Nowhere is it either stated or implied that encounters should all be similar in difficulty. There are four different encounter difficulties on the table, not two, which does imply that all four will be used. But there's nothing to indicate how frequently or how consistently they should be used.

Look at the text about expected encounters on p. 84 of the DMG. Immediately after saying that most parties can handle (note: can handle, not should have) 6-8 medium or hard encounters it adds that the number will be higher or lower if some of those encounters are easy or deadly, respectively.

There's nothing wrong with having 6-8 medium or hard encounters in an adventuring day, but it's not any more of a recommendation than having 12-14 easy ones, 2-3 deadly ones, or a mix of difficulties that adds up to about the same XP.

[Malifice]

If you use them that way it is swingy, but so what? Nowhere is it either stated or implied that encounters should all be similar in difficulty.

Again, I disagree. The implication is the majority of your encounters should be in the medium-hard bracket.


Look at the text about expected encounters on p. 84 of the DMG. Immediately after saying that most parties can handle (note: can handle, not should have) 6-8 medium or hard encounters it adds that the number will be higher or lower if some of those encounters are easy or deadly, respectively.

I'm not saying the text infers 'never have deadly encounters'. Im saying that the standard is medium-hard. Obviously that standard can be deviated from.

Like; I would expect the lions share of encounters in my adventuring career to be in the [medium-hard] bracket with a few here or there that are easy or deadly.

[JoeJ]

Again, I disagree. The implication is the majority of your encounters should be in the medium-hard bracket.

What are you looking at in the text to draw that inference?


I'm not saying the text infers 'never have deadly encounters'. Im saying that the standard is medium-hard. Obviously that standard can be deviated from.

Like; I would expect the lions share of encounters in my adventuring career to be in the [medium-hard] bracket with a few here or there that are easy or deadly.

If you were in my game, that expectation would prove wrong. The most common category would be easy, although those encounters would not be the most memorable. I'm enough of an old schooler that doing it your way would feel like the party was never making any progress between rests. (But then I also consider a medium-sized dungeon to have 2 or 3 levels with a total of around 40-50 rooms.)

[Malifice]

If you were in my game, that expectation would prove wrong. The most common category would be easy, although those encounters would not be the most memorable.

Can you give me an example of an easy encounter for 5 x 5th level PC's that they couldnt steamroll with little to no difficulty?

[JoeJ]

Can you give me an example of an easy encounter for 5 x 5th level PC's that they couldnt steamroll with little to no difficulty?

That would make little sense. Easy encounters are supposed to be easy, at least individually. The party should be able to manage 4 or 5 of them before they start thinking that it's time to take a short rest. And if they're exploring, say, three rooms for each set encounter, then by the time they need a break they've gone far enough that it feels like they've actually made some progress.

[Malifice]

That would make little sense. Easy encounters are supposed to be easy, at least individually. The party should be able to manage 4 or 5 of them before they start thinking that it's time to take a short rest. And if they're exploring, say, three rooms for each set encounter, then by the time they need a break they've gone far enough that it feels like they've actually made some progress.

Im not sure I would find steamrolling 4-5 easy encounters without really breaking a sweat all that entertaining personally, but if it works for your campaign then YMMV.

I mean thats like 6 x Gnolls or 3 x ghouls or 2 x Ogres or 1 x Ettin (v a party of 5 x 5th level PC's).

And it becomes a 15 encounter adventuring day.

I suppose a side effect of that would be that your 'primary caster' types are forced to rely on cantrips a lot more, and barbarians to really conserve rages, but on the flip side youre forcing your Warlocks, Monks and Fighters to strech short rest resources over 2 x the expected number of fights.

[JoeJ]

Im not sure I would find steamrolling 4-5 easy encounters without really breaking a sweat all that entertaining personally, but if it works for your campaign then YMMV.

Despite the wargaming origins of D&D, I've always found exploration the more entertaining part of the game. More but easier fights lets a party explore deeper into the dungeon before needing to stop.


I mean thats like 6 x Gnolls or 3 x ghouls or 2 x Ogres or 1 x Ettin (v a party of 5 x 5th level PC's).

And it becomes a 15 encounter adventuring day.

It actually comes out to more like 12-14 if they're all easy. Fewer if some are harder.


I suppose a side effect of that would be that your 'primary caster' types are forced to rely on cantrips a lot more, and barbarians to really conserve rages, but on the flip side youre forcing your Warlocks, Monks and Fighters to strech short rest resources over 2 x the expected number of fights.

Except that I'm not exceeding the expected number of fights because there is no expected number. It's however many it takes to get to the expected XP level, with short rests at roughly 1/3 and 2/3 of that. And because I play more of a sandbox style, I don't have either short or long rests figured into my dungeons. It's up to the players to decide when to rest, and either leave the dungeon or find an empty room they can secure. Or, if they're not in a dungeon, they have to decide when to stop and make camp.

[Malifice]

Except that I'm not exceeding the expected number of fights because there is no expected number.

Again, I disagree. The game balances best around 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day, broken up with around 2 short rests. Enough for a dungeon of about 20-25 rooms. More encounters per short rests means short rest resources need to be rationed over more encounters (and same deal for long rest resources). Generally your short rest resources are expected to last you around 2.5 encounters (or around 10 rounds).

Rogues and Champions would excell in your campaigns at the expense of casters seeing as they are rest neutral.

God help casters trying to ration out spell slots over a 13-15 encounter/ 2 short rest AD. Even with just 4 rounds per combat (its probably less for easy encounters; most would be over inside of 3 rounds) youre looking at 60 odd rounds in the AD, and about 20 rounds between short rests. It takes a Monk till 20th level to have enough Ki to spend 1 point per round, a high level BM fighter can only use a sup dice every third round or so. A 10th level Warlock can only cast a spell every 10th round (or halfway through every third combat). Its too long a wait between rests for mine. It takes your party Wizard till 7th level before they can cast a spell in every combat, and they spend 3/4 of the time relying on cantrips.

I suppose the reliance on 'at-will' abilities that are not resource dependent is evened out by the ease of your encouters on the other hand.

I guess its more of a play style preference. I would find a string of easy encounters and relying on cantrips 3/4 of the time pretty boring after a while. I prefer the smaller recommended (6-8 medium to hard) encounters personally. You have slightly higher difficulty, however its compensated by being able to rely on (action surge, Ki, spell slots etc) slightly more reliably and more often.

[Spore]

If you do encounters depending on the players instead of the environment at least for me, some kind of immersion is broken. Having a goblin hoard be more dangerous than the powerful and suddenly vanished mage's tower is bad form. I am not against surprises but they should make sense in a game.

Also have friendly allies provide for a place to make short rests in if the group needs them. But don't overdo it. This isn't an MMO where every combat is designed for the group to perform at peak.

I know sensible encounter design is important but you can't and shouldn't design all combat around the heroes.

[Malifice]

If you do encounters depending on the players instead of the environment at least for me, some kind of immersion is broken. Having a goblin hoard be more dangerous than the powerful and suddenly vanished mage's tower is bad form. I am not against surprises but they should make sense in a game.

Also have friendly allies provide for a place to make short rests in if the group needs them. But don't overdo it. This isn't an MMO where every combat is designed for the group to perform at peak.

I know sensible encounter design is important but you can't and shouldn't design all combat around the heroes.

I disagree. I like the fact I can balance encounters to the power of the party.

[JoeJ]

Again, I disagree. The game balances best around 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day, broken up with around 2 short rests. Enough for a dungeon of about 20-25 rooms. More encounters per short rests means short rest resources need to be rationed over more encounters (and same deal for long rest resources). Generally your short rest resources are expected to last you around 2.5 encounters (or around 10 rounds).

You don't use as many resources per encounter when they're easier.


Rogues and Champions would excell in your campaigns at the expense of casters seeing as they are rest neutral.

God help casters trying to ration out spell slots over a 13-15 encounter/ 2 short rest AD. Even with just 4 rounds per combat (its probably less for easy encounters; most would be over inside of 3 rounds) youre looking at 60 odd rounds in the AD, and about 20 rounds between short rests. It takes a Monk till 20th level to have enough Ki to spend 1 point per round, a high level BM fighter can only use a sup dice every third round or so. A 10th level Warlock can only cast a spell every 10th round (or halfway through every third combat). Its too long a wait between rests for mine. It takes your party Wizard till 7th level before they can cast a spell in every combat, and they spend 3/4 of the time relying on cantrips.

I suppose the reliance on 'at-will' abilities that are not resource dependent is evened out by the ease of your encouters on the other hand.

I guess its more of a play style preference. I would find a string of easy encounters and relying on cantrips 3/4 of the time pretty boring after a while. I prefer the smaller recommended (6-8 medium to hard) encounters personally. You have slightly higher difficulty, however its compensated by being able to rely on (action surge, Ki, spell slots etc) slightly more reliably and more often.

Continuing to repeat it does not make it true. There is no recommended number of encounters. The 6-8 you keep referring to is an example, not a recommendation. The sentence immediately following makes that very clear.

If you find it boring, that probably means you're expecting combat to be the most interesting part of the game. For me, it's just one of the challenges of exploration, or possibly a result of something that happens in social interaction. I DM the way I like to play.

[Malifice]

The 6-8 you keep referring to is an example, not a recommendation. The sentence immediately following makes that very clear.

And again, I disagree.


If you find it boring, that probably means you're expecting combat to be the most interesting part of the game. For me, it's just one of the challenges of exploration, or possibly a result of something that happens in social interaction. I DM the way I like to play.

Same here. I wouldnt want to slog through over a dozen trivial combats, being forced to largely rely on at will powers to over come them. I prefer fewer harder fights (around 6 mostly hard fights) per long rest, with a short rest every 2 encounters or so.

I wouldnt play a Warlock or Monk in your campaigns. Only getting 2 spell slots or a handful of Ki to ration over 5 or so encounters wouldnt appeal to me. I would consider a Champion though.

[JoeJ]

I wouldnt play a Warlock or Monk in your campaigns. Only getting 2 spell slots or a handful of Ki to ration over 5 or so encounters wouldnt appeal to me. I would consider a Champion though.

There's certainly nothing wrong with playing a Champion. And I agree that it is a different play style when you can't expect to use rest abilities, in every encounter but have to decide for each encounter whether or not you it's worth going nova.

[DireSickFish]

Seems like "eyeball it" and "treat a trap of x difficulty as an encounter of x difficulty" are the default answers?

I just wanted to have a tree fall on the party as they are being stalked by a ranger that knows the area. I might just work the trap into the actual fight with him and up the difficulty of it a step.