My party hates me.... and I love it

[djreynolds]

I'm finally at 13th level, and at 12th, its pathetic I know, I finally got my intelligence to 20. And now my wizard is a god.....
No more cantrips, chain lighting is awesome. I'm blowing through all my higher spells, and it is great. Abjuration is awesome, my party asks me why we I have to cast ritual alarm all the time, they're fools!!!

Question?

Is this supposed to happen? After sucking it up for all these levels, my party members are just looking down at the table as I crush the enemy. They are only fit to carry my spell book. Am I supposed to go all arrogant and crazy when I get 6th and 7th level spells?

How do I get them back into the game? Do I go back to just buffing them up and spamming cantrips? Or is this how the world turns? I mean the DM dumbly set up enemy 30ft apart from each other, was I not supposed to cast chain lighting?

Am I really "stealing kills" by finishing off a guy with finger of death and gaining a nice "meat" shield?

They are now sad when my turn comes up. How do I get them back into the fold?

[PersonMan]

It sounds like you've run into the problem of differing optimization levels.

Basically, you're stronger than everyone else and it makes the game less fun for them (because you do everything, so why even bother?).

I'd suggest looking at less powerful spells to use, buffs and such can be a nice way to regain favor. Maybe also talk to the DM, give him some pointers on how to design encounters that are harder for you to trivialize.

[coredump]

How many encounters do you guys have between long rests?

Chain lightning is cool, but you only get it once per day (twice if use 7th slot). If you have 4 targets, then you can do a bunch of damage, average 180 on a failed save, and 90 if they make it.

But at 13th level, that shouldn't be that big of a deal. (Especially if there is only the one big baddie)

My 10th level archer regularly gets in the 70-80+ range, my 12th Paladin can get much higher with Smites.....
A decent GWM fighter, with action surge, can really dish it out. (6 attacks!)

And all 3 of those can do it multiple times a day.

Finger of Death.... what 60 points...or only 30 with a save? Sorry, but that just isn't impressive. If 13th level PCs are having trouble doing that much damage....they better have some other really useful talent.


Facing 4 CR6-7 creatures will give a Hard encounter.... and doing 20-50 pts of damage to each of those is really good.... but when they each have 110-145 hp....there is still a lot of fight left. (and the CR and HP jump up for a Deadly encounter)




If there is only 1-2 encounters a day, then wizards are more powerful than intended. But evenso, unless they are both Medium enounters, I'm not seeing why your Mage would outclass the rest of them at this level.

[gameogre]

Revel in it! Drink in the glory and power that comes with finally reaching the power of a higher level caster and throw off your feelings of weakness for lesser beings!

Seriously, enjoy it. Destroy your foes in mass and rain hell down in such ways at to make your DM's face turn white and make the other players reach for their handbooks to double check that yes you CAN indeed combine those effects and reach even higher!

All that said, be aware that although the Wizard is a God among men at times, often he is only Godly in the right situation and with the right backup. A Wizard NEEDS the rest of the party in order to reach those amazing heights.

Also you should husband your spells and many battles it might not even be worth it for you to cast anything but a cantrip.

[SharkForce]

it might indeed be a problem of optimization.

at level 13, you get your second-to-last increase to your proficiency bonus. combine with the +2 int the previous level, and that's a pretty big jump in effectiveness in general, not only from the level 7 spell slot.

for example, against a creature with a +1 save (say in dex or int), you went from DC 16 to DC 18 in 2 levels, or to put it in a way that more clearly shows the power increase, you went from enemies succeeding about 1 in 3 times to 1 in 5. if you actually managed to find enemies with no bonus at all, you went from them saving 1 in 4 to about 1 in 6.

in either case, enemies are about 2/3 as likely to break free - a rather substantial difference. from this point on, if you can find a weakness in their saving throws that you can exploit, you can have some very high success rates against enemies.

other classes don't generally enjoy the same benefit; a fighter, for example, will hit more often, but AC generally goes up a lot faster than a monster's worst save, and a single hit has less of an impact than a single failed save. +1 to hit represents a small boost for a warrior, but +1 save DC properly used can be a very large boost for a spellcaster.

of course, the fact that it coincides with some of the more powerful spells coming online doesn't hurt either.

so it could very well be that you're using your power spike better than others if you're targeting your enemies in their weak spots. i don't know that it is "supposed" to be like that per se, but i do recall predicting this sort of thing would happen between levels 11 and 15 months ago and being assured it wouldn't. i have a better understanding now (back then i thought it was all just about the spells too, didn't grasp the implications of save DC going up properly), and still am inclined to expect this kind of scenario from spellcasters in general... what exactly does the rest of the party look like as far as class, major feats, etc? if they aren't optimizing really hard, they may be quite justified in feeling like they didn't improve as much as you did...

[djreynolds]

This is one of my older, older campaigns, and it is featless. Which really blows for martial types, especially fighters and our barbarian. DO NOT PLAY WITHOUT FEATS

So yeah, it definitely optimization, our paladin, rogue, and my wizard kill it. Our warlock is great, but our barbarian is "the" meat shield. He never was, he was the guy I used to haste and stand next to with mirror image up and we'd share my arcane ward, and he would end people.

Starting out I had a 15 intelligence, and I quite frankly sucked in damage, now my wizard is nasty.

I wish things like mirror image and fire shield could be cast on other players, but it seems only concentration spells such as prof from evil, and haste can be. Maybe stoneskin. But the other thing is we are not kids, we are adults and you'd figure people would just play.

The featless games sucks, do not play it. No multiclassing is fine, but feats are really needed.

Its funny you mention resting, I champion the DM guide, cause of the very reason of me blowing through spells and making martials look weak. The funny thing is I only used two spells, my only 6th and 7th.

I will definitely take everyone's advice and relax on dropping bombs, but the DM just put three fire giants in my path and chain lighting was too tough to pass up.

[Talamare]

Are you doing Arcane Ward correctly?

First time you cast an ABJURATION spell per day, you gain 2x Wizard Level + Int in your Ward

Any other time you cast an ABJURATION spell that day it only grants you 2x Spell Level

As far as Alarm goes, if you cast it as a Ritual. You did not cast it as a Spell. It does not trigger Arcane Ward. (Even if it did, it would only be 2 hp.)

[djreynolds]

Are you doing Arcane Ward correctly?

First time you cast an ABJURATION spell per day, you gain 2x Wizard Level + Int in your Ward

Any other time you cast an ABJURATION spell that day it only grants you 2x Spell Level

As far as Alarm goes, if you cast it as a Ritual. You did not cast it as a Spell. It does not trigger Arcane Ward. (Even if it did, it would only be 2 hp.)

We allow the alarm ritual and yes it is only 2hp, and we often are caught in the middle of casting it and are forced to fight, our DM loves to give and take.

So between and around short rests I'll cast it, alarm, and often will fail my stealth check and perception check, and have to run away or use what is left over in my arcane ward fighting off random monsters.

Its cheesy, but not a huge infraction.

[Flashy]

our barbarian is "the" meat shield. He never was, he was the guy I used to haste and stand next to with mirror image up and we'd share my arcane ward, and he would end people.

Is there any reason you can't still toss him Haste? It doesn't sound like you're using your concentration for anything else now. Maybe that could smooth things out a bit?

[Talamare]

So between and around short rests I'll cast it, alarm, and often will fail my stealth check and perception check, and have to run away or use what is left over in my arcane ward fighting off random monsters.

Its cheesy, but not a huge infraction.

You can't cast spells/rituals during short rests
You can while travelling but it forfeits your stealth check & perception check

The last thing to mention is Resource Management which is a DM thing, not a player thing.
The game is balanced on having a few short rests per day, with multiple encounters. It's perfectly fine for the wizard to blow all his high spells on those 3 fire giant fight. But now he only has weak spells for the rest of the fights that day.

Think of it like this
A fighter is a Line. Fairly consistent source of medium damage
A wizard is a wave. Burst of high damage, bursts of low damage

If you make each day too short that resource management isn't coming into play, then you're giving Wizards his burst of high, without penalizing his burst of low.

[hymer]

[casting] forfeits your [...] perception check

I don't follow that part. Would you elaborate?

[Talamare]

I don't follow that part. Would you elaborate?

Travelling rules, Doing nothing and staying aware allows you to have your Perception check as you're on watch for danger
Focusing on other activities pulls your attention away

[hymer]

Travelling rules, Doing nothing and staying aware allows you to have your Perception check as you're on watch for danger
Focusing on other activities pulls your attention away

Thank you!

[Hairfish]

Since they don't have any feats that would require tactical decision-making, have you considered buffing your party members with Hold Person + Create Undead?

[Shining Wrath]

So what do you do for the 8th encounter of the day? As others have pointed out, a wizard can dominate any encounter he wants to dominate, but he can't dominate them all.

[choryukami]

I got this later on as a bard. Magical Secrets is awesome. Of course, I have a lot of other stuff I do besides damage. Also, casters have finite resources. I always end up saving the biggest stuff for a rainy day (the boss) and blow the crap out of the big encounters. I let the melees blow through the little dudes (unless there's a huge one, then I fireball). It really depends on the situation.

Feats are definitely needed to make a Fighter more badass. They get a lot of attacks, but having GWM or Sharpshooter puts them over the top. Paladins are high spike damage guys all by themselves.

[Nu]

I guess I'd echo the question of "is this one of those games where you have one to three encounters between long rests"? Because yes, a wizard is completely busted in that scenario, but it's not what the system is balanced around so it's to be expected.

[coredump]

This is one of my older, older campaigns, and it is featless. Which really blows for martial types, especially fighters and our barbarian. DO NOT PLAY WITHOUT FEATS I agree that feats seem to help martials more than casters, but the lack of feats isn't the problem. Being free to up stats is also really helpful for martial classes.



The funny thing is I only used two spells, my only 6th and 7th.

, but the DM just put three fire giants in my path and chain lighting was too tough to pass up.
See.... this just makes no sense.

So you cast Chain Lightning and get 45hp damage. (10d8). Most likely only 1 saves, so two take 45, and one takes 22 damage.

But they have *165* hit points..!! Sure, its a nice opening move, but there is a *lot* of fighting left to be done. Especially when the giants recognize your threat-level, so one of them walks forward and hits you twice for about 60 pts of damage. (And if enough of a threat, two of them come over...)

Finger of death....sure, it means one of the giants (likely) takes another 30pts. Again, nice, but just not that big of a deal.

At this level, the fighter is getting 3 attacks, (6 attacks with Action Surge). And can do it *every* round. You can do that once, per day.

I just don't see how that amount of damage made that much of an impact in the fight. And that is *one* fight...what happened on the second fight of the day? Third? .....?

[gfishfunk]

It sounds like you are playing just fine and as you should, but your DM is running the game in such a way as to give you the massive bump - either shortchanging monster HP or not providing enough encounters per day, etc. Neither are your fault.

So, if there is a problem, it can be solved by continued adventuring on a daily (in game) basis.

[PoeticDwarf]

Normally martials would do better damage, normally other fullcasters aren't weaker than wizards. You picked some nice spells. The party is going for way too weak attacks and the DM is giving 1/2 encounters per rest

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I'm honestly confused why you're kicking that much butt. Something is seriously amiss here.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The wizard was pretty much made to optimize. It is really hard not to, unless you specifically set out to not optimize.

Just by taking the "cool spells" you will end up optimized. It isn't the OPs fualt, the game is just made in such a way that wizards are gods.

Martials and some other classes you really need to make an effort before you start optimizing. If you are a barbarian or fighter you have to take a feat and then make sure to use said feat as much as possible. You have to take specific other options that may or may not be cool. Then when you get to it, all you really do is damage.

Eveyone one likes to compare damage against each class. Fighter versus Sorcerer versus Cleric.

That's backwards and doesn't really matter. What matters is what your damage potential versus what the DM is throwing at you.

If the Fighter does 100 pts of damage and the Wizard does 60 pts of damage... But the target has 110 hp, both the Wizard and Fighter will kill the target with two turns. It doesn't matter that the Fighter has a 40% increase in damage, that 40% is going to waste. Yeah sometimes that 40% will be used but generally it won't be needed.

At the same time, the Wizard and other casters, have a plethora of options that other classes can't dream of touching.

Some classes have a higher optimization floor AND ceiling while others have a lower floor and ceiling (though their ceiling may have a steeple where they can do one thing).

It isn't OPs fault, just how the game is made.

[Talamare]

The wizard was pretty much made to optimize. It is really hard not to, unless you specifically set out to not optimize.

Just by taking the "cool spells" you will end up optimized. It isn't the OPs fualt, the game is just made in such a way that wizards are gods.

Martials and some other classes you really need to make an effort before you start optimizing. If you are a barbarian or fighter you have to take a feat and then make sure to use said feat as much as possible. You have to take specific other options that may or may not be cool. Then when you get to it, all you really do is damage.

Eveyone one likes to compare damage against each class. Fighter versus Sorcerer versus Cleric.

That's backwards and doesn't really matter. What matters is what your damage potential versus what the DM is throwing at you.

If the Fighter does 100 pts of damage and the Wizard does 60 pts of damage... But the target has 110 hp, both the Wizard and Fighter will kill the target with two turns. It doesn't matter that the Fighter has a 40% increase in damage, that 40% is going to waste. Yeah sometimes that 40% will be used but generally it won't be needed.

At the same time, the Wizard and other casters, have a plethora of options that other classes can't dream of touching.

Some classes have a higher optimization floor AND ceiling while others have a lower floor and ceiling (though their ceiling may have a steeple where they can do one thing).

It isn't OPs fault, just how the game is made.

I think, you only think that because you used such extreme numbers. Average tough monsters are balanced around 4 attacks. If you're poorly optimized that could even go as high as 5 to 6 attacks. Perfectly optimized might mean 3 attacks.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think, you only think that because you used such extreme numbers. Average tough monsters are balanced around 4 attacks. If you're poorly optimized that could even go as high as 5 to 6 attacks. Perfectly optimized might mean 3 attacks.

It doesn't matter the numbers I used, the point still stands.

Doing more damage compared to other players doesn't matter. What matters is how much damage you deal compared to the max HP of the creature you are attacking.

If it is going to take both players the same number of actions to take out a creature (which because of banishment and a few other spells HP isn't even relevant all the time) then your result is the same no matter if one player deals more damage than the other.

To kill a creature with HP damage you don't compare your damage to another players but to the HP of the creature.

And to do that damage, who has to pile on more resources? Casters need levels and casting stat boost. Martials need levels, feats, ability score boosts, and typically help from a caster (flying, magic weapon, getting a creature to stay still, etc...).

[MaxWilson]

I agree that feats seem to help martials more than casters, but the lack of feats isn't the problem. Being free to up stats is also really helpful for martial classes.

See.... this just makes no sense.

So you cast Chain Lightning and get 45hp damage. (10d8). Most likely only 1 saves, so two take 45, and one takes 22 damage.

But they have *165* hit points..!! Sure, its a nice opening move, but there is a *lot* of fighting left to be done. Especially when the giants recognize your threat-level, so one of them walks forward and hits you twice for about 60 pts of damage. (And if enough of a threat, two of them come over...)

Finger of death....sure, it means one of the giants (likely) takes another 30pts. Again, nice, but just not that big of a deal.

Agreed, high-level evocation spells are pretty bad in 5E. Makes me wonder if the "other players are only fit to carry my spellbook" is a perception shared by the other players, who did the lion's share of the killing, or if it is all in the mind of the wizard. If the latter then nothing is wrong at all--everyone feels like they are the superstar of the party, and everyone is happy.

[Dralnu]

Sounds like you need to talk with your DM about allowing feats. Spellcasters can do fine without them, but for martials it's a night and day difference. Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter are insane. Kryxx has the math to back me up on that.

I think allowing feats will fix most of the perceived issues. Generally Fighter type characters are content if they're putting up the biggest single target damage; it's all about the phat numbers. Feats will do that.

Also yes, Wizards do get more than martials at higher levels. Spells are really good. It's how it's always been in D&D, unfortunately -- lame, possibly underpowered early levels and then godlike powers at the high levels. I'd never bring myself to playing a level 1 Wizard / Sorcerer again, but level 5+ gets real fun, and then levels 15+ god mode is enabled.

[djreynolds]

I'm only allowed to cast the ritual alarm around rests not during, and its only 2hp a pop. And we use it really to cover our backs

Before 12th level, my character's intelligence was not max. In fact at creation it was a 15 and my strength was a 16, and I would tank and haste party member and at 6th level share my arcane ward. And my save or suck spells, sucked. I had no real means of radiant damage either, and hypnotic wave was ineffective due to poor creation.

I would literally enter the fray with mirror image, caste haste on the barbarian and hope the enemy would take some swings at me and spam the shield spell to keep the arcane ward up. But as levels progressed, that 15 became a 17, and a 19 and then a 20. And cantrips, that at the beginning were not a good option became really powerful. When you intelligence is 15 or 17, you miss with a lot of cantrips, so my contribution to the party was buffing and taking hits.

I used to run out of spells quite frequently, and though a mountain dwarf gets medium armor, half plate is a 15AC, they do not get a real shield and a lot my fist level spells went right using the shield spell in melee, which does help out the arcane ward, as does casting protection from evil on you or buddy when you think trouble is around the bend.

And stuff like fireballs and lightning bolt do not work versus many resistant enemy when your ability modifier is +3, most make saves and totally evade it, so hasting others was a better option. But 4th level spells came around, and fireshield allowed me another defensive measure that doesn't require concentration, making me a little bit more tanky. But honestly ice storm sucks, its is not the 3.5E menace it once was. Greater invisibility is better for others, like our rogue. But 6th level spells are totally different, teleport, sunbeam, really morphed my original hardened dwarf war wizard concept into really a normal wizard.

And you guys are correct, I need to get back to using concentration spells on the party again. MUST GIVE THE TANKS THEIR DUE RESPECT AND BUFF THEM.

But, IMO, those 6th level spells and up are just game changing, especially when coupled with the increased proficiency and a wizards SAD requirements, casters start to really get powerful, and "crazy", around 12th level. Your cantrip is now 3d8 or 3d10, you might have an 18DC and +10 to hit with ranged spells. It could just be the level and timing. And I'm sure the DM next Wednesday will hurt us.

Getting these spells, is like getting a new girlfriend or boy friend (for the ladies out there) in high school, its awesome now and I'm sure I will come back down to earth in the next session. I dropped 51 on the chain lightning, and they all failed their saves.

But isn't dropping big enemy or clearing out mooks, allowing the martial guys to shine? Wouldn't your fighter like it if I dropped bigby's hand on the fire giant swinging his two hand section of skyscraper and evened the odds a little? Would your paladin like to focus on the demon, and not the fodder and minions chomping at his ankles?

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm finally at 13th level, and at 12th, its pathetic I know, I finally got my intelligence to 20. And now my wizard is a god.....
No more cantrips, chain lighting is awesome. I'm blowing through all my higher spells, and it is great. Abjuration is awesome, my party asks me why we I have to cast ritual alarm all the time, they're fools!!!

Question?

Is this supposed to happen? After sucking it up for all these levels, my party members are just looking down at the table as I crush the enemy. They are only fit to carry my spell book. Am I supposed to go all arrogant and crazy when I get 6th and 7th level spells?

How do I get them back into the game? Do I go back to just buffing them up and spamming cantrips? Or is this how the world turns? I mean the DM dumbly set up enemy 30ft apart from each other, was I not supposed to cast chain lighting?

Am I really "stealing kills" by finishing off a guy with finger of death and gaining a nice "meat" shield?

They are now sad when my turn comes up. How do I get them back into the fold?

I mean, if they were mostly dead already it sounds like you wasted your most powerful spell slot to create a zombie. But then again, I love efficiency.

Also, after casting the 7th and 6th level slots, you're technically no better than you were at 12th level?

Another...also, it sounds like you had one encounter after leveling (if you only cast 2 spells and no cantrips, then you could have contributed to at most 2 encounters)...any update on group dynamics for the remaining 4-6 (or 5-7) encounters? I'm skeptical that things wouldn't normalize. Which makes sense if you nova'd out all your best abilities in the first fight. (Not that I'm judging, I am a huge fan of peace through superior firepower).

[Malifice]

I'm finally at 13th level, and at 12th, its pathetic I know, I finally got my intelligence to 20. And now my wizard is a god.....
No more cantrips, chain lighting is awesome. I'm blowing through all my higher spells, and it is great. Abjuration is awesome, my party asks me why we I have to cast ritual alarm all the time, they're fools!!!

Question?

Is this supposed to happen? After sucking it up for all these levels, my party members are just looking down at the table as I crush the enemy. They are only fit to carry my spell book. Am I supposed to go all arrogant and crazy when I get 6th and 7th level spells?

How do I get them back into the game? Do I go back to just buffing them up and spamming cantrips? Or is this how the world turns? I mean the DM dumbly set up enemy 30ft apart from each other, was I not supposed to cast chain lighting?

Am I really "stealing kills" by finishing off a guy with finger of death and gaining a nice "meat" shield?

They are now sad when my turn comes up. How do I get them back into the fold?

Its not your fault, its your DMs fault.

Hes not throwing the recomended 6-8 encounters per day at you, thus allowing you to nova every encounter with your highest level spell slots.

Hes not policing the adventuring day and sticking to the DMGs encounter pacing. Its his fault.

[MaxWilson]

But 6th level spells are totally different, teleport, sunbeam, really morphed my original hardened dwarf war wizard concept into really a normal wizard.

Nitpick: Teleport is 7th level. Teleportation Circle is 5th level. If you're casting Teleport at 12th level, you shouldn't be.


But, IMO, those 6th level spells and up are just game changing, especially when coupled with the increased proficiency and a wizards SAD requirements, casters start to really get powerful, and "crazy", around 12th level. Your cantrip is now 3d8 or 3d10, you might have an 18DC and +10 to hit with ranged spells. It could just be the level and timing. And I'm sure the DM next Wednesday will hurt us.

Getting these spells, is like getting a new girlfriend or boy friend (for the ladies out there) in high school, its awesome now and I'm sure I will come back down to earth in the next session. I dropped 51 on the chain lightning, and they all failed their saves.

But isn't dropping big enemy or clearing out mooks, allowing the martial guys to shine? Wouldn't your fighter like it if I dropped bigby's hand on the fire giant swinging his two hand section of skyscraper and evened the odds a little? Would your paladin like to focus on the demon, and not the fodder and minions chomping at his ankles?

Okay, I understand your post now. You're not actually dominating the group in a problematic way. You are just happy that your character concept is now finally working, now you've got DC 18 on your spells due to +5 prof and +5 Int. From what you've described of your group dynamics, it's likely that your group is 100% fine with you being effective that way. They probably don't hate you at all.

So, congrats! Enjoy your next session, I hope it goes well.

=====================================


Also, after casting the 7th and 6th level slots, you're technically no better than you were at 12th level?

Not quite. You do go from +4 to +5 proficiency bonus at 13th level.

[Dralnu]

Its not your fault, its your DMs fault.

Hes not throwing the recomended 6-8 encounters per day at you, thus allowing you to nova every encounter with your highest level spell slots.

Hes not policing the adventuring day and sticking to the DMGs encounter pacing. Its his fault.

Do people really run 6-8 encounters per day though? In my ten years of gaming among 5+ groups, through both homebrew and official modules, having that many is a super rare occurrence. Usually it would only happen in a "the world is about to end in X hours" type of situation, or a siege. Otherwise adventurers are going to rest unless you force random encounters on them constantly, with no option to find a safe spot. Which is a jerk move.

I would've assumed 2-3 encounters per day would be closer to the norm. Things would get tedious 6-8 medium'ish encounters per day, every day, like a chore or something.

[pwykersotz]

Do people really run 6-8 encounters per day though? In my ten years of gaming among 5+ groups, through both homebrew and official modules, having that many is a super rare occurrence. Usually it would only happen in a "the world is about to end in X hours" type of situation, or a siege. Otherwise adventurers are going to rest unless you force random encounters on them constantly, with no option to find a safe spot. Which is a jerk move.

I would've assumed 2-3 encounters per day would be closer to the norm. Things would get tedious 6-8 medium'ish encounters per day, every day, like a chore or something.

It depends on how much you stretch it out over the playtime. How many encounters there are per imaginary day isn't really relevant except on the mechanical side of things. How many fights you get into compared with how much time you have to roleplay or explore in realtime is a much more important metric to me.

[Dralnu]

It depends on how much you stretch it out over the playtime. How many encounters there are per imaginary day isn't really relevant except on the mechanical side of things. How many fights you get into compared with how much time you have to roleplay or explore in realtime is a much more important metric to me.

That's true. Also a day in-game could be multiple sessions. Still, it's hard for me to wrap my head around consistently imposing that many fights in-game, let alone balancing a system based on such high numbers. Do the official modules even follow it? LMoP doesn't to my knowledge, but I've never run the others.

[MaxWilson]

Do people really run 6-8 encounters per day though? In my ten years of gaming among 5+ groups, through both homebrew and official modules, having that many is a super rare occurrence. Usually it would only happen in a "the world is about to end in X hours" type of situation, or a siege. Otherwise adventurers are going to rest unless you force random encounters on them constantly, with no option to find a safe spot. Which is a jerk move.

I would've assumed 2-3 encounters per day would be closer to the norm. Things would get tedious 6-8 medium'ish encounters per day, every day, like a chore or something.

The following poll results may be of interest to you:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/poll.php?pollid=6989&do=showresults

[Corran]

I think the 6-8 encounters thing is the guideline for when a DM is preparing a dungeon or a similar situation for the players. Unless you are running a hack and slash game, I dont expect that most parties will abide that guideline strictly (of so many encounters per day), but as long as dungeons and similar situations are prepared by the DM in such a way, then I think it will work just fine.

Dont forget that there is always the variant rule for short and long rests, with a short rest being a day and a long rest bein a week or so. That could work well for parties that prefer a campaign that does not involve combat that often.

[gameogre]

6-8 encounters per day means the class's are balanced. If you run only 1-3 encounters the class's become massively unbalanced.

I just do not care though.

Sometimes I do 1-3 encounters and other times 6-8 encounters or even a few times up to 16 encounters!

I don't tell the players Jack! Let them be uncertain and deal with whatever comes up.

[Malifice]

Do people really run 6-8 encounters per day though?

I do. I aim for around 6 encounters between long rests, around 50 percent of the time. Afew shorter AD's every now and then, and a few longer ADs every now and then.


In my ten years of gaming among 5+ groups, through both homebrew and official modules, having that many is a super rare occurrence. Usually it would only happen in a "the world is about to end in X hours" type of situation, or a siege. Otherwise adventurers are going to rest unless you force random encounters on them constantly, with no option to find a safe spot. Which is a jerk move.

Time limit your adventures. Just like every fantasy story or action movie ever. Save the princess by 'X', stop the BBEG before 'X' or bad thing 'Y' happens, complete the quest by sunrise and get paid double etc.

Dont overuse timed adventures, but use them. Very rarely will you have an adventure movie, story or novel where the hero has all the time in the world to complete his quest.

Think about it for a bit. Most stories contain a time limit for success/ failure. Im struggling to think of a movie or novel that doesnt.


Things would get tedious 6-8 medium'ish encounters per day, every day, like a chore or something.

I dont get this. A long rest is an ingame power recharge, not a playing session. Youre still getting the same number of encounters per session that you always have, so its no more tedious than it is if youre resting every 2-3 encounters.

Try a [6-8 encounter/ 2 short rest] AD in your home campaign and see how it balances out. You'll notice a better balance between the classes and the encounters will be much more challenging.


Do the official modules even follow it? LMoP doesn't to my knowledge, but I've never run the others.

For many of the encounters yep. The dungeon crawls certainly do.

Ive never played in any dungeon where we only hit 2-3 rooms then pull back for a nights sleep unless we are intentionally using nova tactics and the DM is waaaay too permissive. Most published dungeons contain at lest 15 'encounter areas' with 6-8 encounters being the norm.


6-8 encounters per day means the class's are balanced. If you run only 1-3 encounters the class's become massively unbalanced.

I just do not care though.

Sometimes I do 1-3 encounters and other times 6-8 encounters or even a few times up to 16 encounters!

I don't tell the players Jack! Let them be uncertain and deal with whatever comes up.

Thats exactly how youre supposed to do it.

Mix it up. Make 6-8 be your default for around 50 percent of the time. Use timed adventures to enforce it.

For the remaining 50 percent you can mix it up - but what you will find is that the players will naturally pace themselves artound the 6-8 standard (as long as you make that the expected default). Long rest dependent classes wont blow their loads on the shorter adventuring days as they're conditioned to hold stuff back in reserve. I find (across different groups) it becomes a self regulating system at the 50/50 mark.

I seriously cannot stress this enough. Encounters, CRs, and the classes balance perfectly at the [6-8 encounter/ 2 short rest per AD] point. If youre not doing it, youre messing with the class balance of the game in a pretty fundamental way.

[MaxWilson]

Malifice, if you're going to give advice you also need to make your house rules clear.

FYI, Malifice bases his adventuring day on raw XP, not adjusted XP. So when you see him say "6-8 encounters per day" you need to understand that he means 6-8 Medium or Hard encounters per day and about 150% adjusted XP of the normal adventuring day budget. If you take his advice but then follow DMG rules you will get different results than he does.

[Malifice]

Malifice, if you're going to give advice you also need to make your house rules clear.

FYI, Malifice bases his adventuring day on raw XP, not adjusted XP. So when you see him say "6-8 encounters per day" you need to understand that he means 6-8 Medium or Hard encounters per day and about 150% adjusted XP of the normal adventuring day budget. If you take his advice but then follow DMG rules you will get different results than he does.

Pick up your DMG again. Page 84 'The Adventuring Day'. The XP per adventuring day mentions both awarded and adjusted XP. Its not clear. It states:

'For each character in the party use the Adventuring day XP table to determine how much XP that character is expected to earn in a day'

I note that following the 6-8 recommendation in the rest of the DMG, then the numbers in the chart add up with earnt XP but not with adjusted XP. There is an argument that those numbers are awarded Xp and not adjusted for difficulty XP, but its not clear. It's also stated to be a 'rough estimate' only.

Here (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2moara/xp_per_adventuring_day/)is a redditt on the topic.

And its certainly not a house rule. 6-8 encounters/ 2 short rests adventuring days are the expected default in the book dude.

I go with 6 encounters/ 2 short rests (I split the difference) personally.

[MaxWilson]

Pick up your DMG again. Page 84 'The Adventuring Day'. The XP per adventuring day mentions both awarded and adjusted XP. Its not clear. It states:

'For each character in the party use the Adventuring day XP table to determine how much XP that character is expected to earn in a day'

I note that following the 6-8 recommendation in the rest of the DMG, then the numbers in the chart add up. There is an argument that those numbers are awarded Xp and not adjusted for difficulty XP, but its not clear. It's also stated to be a 'rough estimate' only.

And its certainly not a house rule. 6-8 encounters/ 2 short rests adventuring days are the expected default in the book dude.

I go with 6 encounters/ 2 short rests (I split the difference) personally.

Uh, did you even look at the table on page 84? It is labeled "Adjusted XP per day per character."


For each character in the party, use the Adventuring
Day XP table to estimate how much XP that character is
expected to earn in a day. Add together the values of all
party members to get a total for the party’s adventuring
day. This provides a rough estimate of the adjusted XP
value for encounters the party can handle before the
characters will need to take a long rest.
Adventuring Day XP
Level
Adjusted XP per Day
per Character
1st 300
2nd 600
3rd 1,200
4th 1,700
5th 3,500
6th 4,000
7th 5,000
8th 6,000
9th 7,500
10th 9,000
Level
Adjusted XP per Day
per Character
11th 10,500
12th 11,500
13th 13,500
14th 15,000
15th 18,000
16th 20,000
17th 25,000
18th 27,000
19th 30,000
20th 40,000

Anyone who takes your advice but follows the "adjusted XP per Day per Character" chart is going to get different results than you because you're calculating adventuring days using raw XP, which only matches adjusted XP if all fights are solo monsters. They need to know your method if they're going to take your advice and get the same results as you.

Look, it's easy. Just say, "I advise you to calculate adventuring days using raw XP instead of adjusted, and to try for 6-8 Medium/Hard fights per day." Was that so hard?

[Malifice]

Uh, did you even look at the table on page 84? It is labeled "Adjusted XP per day per character."

Yeah dude, thats exactly what I said.

However under the heading it specifically states that the table reflects the XP you are supposed to earn each day. It literally says to look at the table for what the player actually earns. Read the DMG. Third paragraph of that section.

The consensus out there seems to be that despite mentioning both adjusted and earnt XP its more likely to be earnt XP. The numbers in the chart match up with 6-8 medium to hard encounters, and (at 1st level) 1 x AD earns you 200 XP (enough to advance a level in a single AD, which the devs have stated is about right).

Have a read here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2moara/xp_per_adventuring_day/

[coredump]

The reason 6-8 encounters a day starts to feel like a 'chore' is twofold:

1) It means a lot of medium encounters, and some easy encounters. Both of which tend to be pretty boring. The PCs know they are going to win because the fights are pretty darn one sided. The only question is if they blow a resource or not. Doing many of these every adventuring day just isnt' that fun.

2) It often just doesn't fit the story line. Traveling..... not going to happen. Invading someone's home...not going to happen. If every (or even a majority) of adventure plots require 6-8 encounters..... it just starts to feel forced.

Clearing out some caverns, or undead infested village, or some random dungeon.... it may be possible. But otherwise....not so much.

[Foxhound438]

How many encounters do you guys have between long rests?

Chain lightning is cool, but you only get it once per day (twice if use 7th slot). If you have 4 targets, then you can do a bunch of damage, average 180 on a failed save, and 90 if they make it.

But at 13th level, that shouldn't be that big of a deal. (Especially if there is only the one big baddie)

My 10th level archer regularly gets in the 70-80+ range, my 12th Paladin can get much higher with Smites.....
A decent GWM fighter, with action surge, can really dish it out. (6 attacks!)

And all 3 of those can do it multiple times a day.

Finger of Death.... what 60 points...or only 30 with a save? Sorry, but that just isn't impressive. If 13th level PCs are having trouble doing that much damage....they better have some other really useful talent.


Facing 4 CR6-7 creatures will give a Hard encounter.... and doing 20-50 pts of damage to each of those is really good.... but when they each have 110-145 hp....there is still a lot of fight left. (and the CR and HP jump up for a Deadly encounter)




If there is only 1-2 encounters a day, then wizards are more powerful than intended. But evenso, unless they are both Medium enounters, I'm not seeing why your Mage would outclass the rest of them at this level.


This is pretty much how it is. Tell your DM to have a bunch of encounters in a row if you want the other characters to do any good.

[coredump]

I

[SNIP]
But, IMO, those 6th level spells and up are just game changing, especially when coupled with the increased proficiency and a wizards SAD requirements, casters start to really get powerful, and "crazy", around 12th level. Your cantrip is now 3d8 or 3d10, you might have an 18DC and +10 to hit with ranged spells. It could just be the level and timing. And I'm sure the DM next Wednesday will hurt us.

Getting these spells, is like getting a new girlfriend or boy friend (for the ladies out there) in high school, its awesome now and I'm sure I will come back down to earth in the next session. I dropped 51 on the chain lightning, and they all failed their saves.

But isn't dropping big enemy or clearing out mooks, allowing the martial guys to shine? Wouldn't your fighter like it if I dropped bigby's hand on the fire giant swinging his two hand section of skyscraper and evened the odds a little? Would your paladin like to focus on the demon, and not the fodder and minions chomping at his ankles?

See, this still makes absolutely no sense to me.

What I read from the above post was:
"I started off weak.... but then got all these super god abilities and spells, and now I am completely outstripping everyone and pwning the game."
"See, look at me do a completely mediocre amount of damage that will not have that much of an effect on the combat."
"I guess I should ease off and let the other folks shine too...."

I'm like....W-Wut??

So you got a little lucky on the damage roll, and a little lucky on the failed saves. So you did 51 HP to head giant.
Good!
But the party is still facing 3 Fire Giants that still have 115 HP remaining, which can potentially deal out 170 of damage each turn.

What you did was useful, it was not game changing. And it is extremely limited....

[Malifice]

The reason 6-8 encounters a day starts to feel like a 'chore' is twofold:

1) It means a lot of medium encounters, and some easy encounters. Both of which tend to be pretty boring. The PCs know they are going to win because the fights are pretty darn one sided. The only question is if they blow a resource or not. Doing many of these every adventuring day just isnt' that fun.

Nah man, thats not true at all. 6-8 [medium to hard] encounters is the recomendation. Not [easy - medium]. I use a standard of 6 [not religiously adhered to]. Usually going with [on average] 1 easy, 2 medium, 2 hard and 1 deadly [BBEG].

And the expectation is in every fight that the PC's win. If the PCs have a 10 percent chance of losing, its TPK before you hit 5th level.


It often just doesn't fit the story line. Traveling..... not going to happen. Invading someone's home...not going to happen. If every (or even a majority) of adventure plots require 6-8 encounters..... it just starts to feel forced.

You dont do it every single time. I have plently of single encounter AD's, or 2-3 encounter AD's. No -one is saying you need to do 6-8 and only ever do 6-8. Mix it up, but make 6-8 your default.


Clearing out some caverns, or undead infested village, or some random dungeon.... it may be possible. But otherwise....not so much.

Its possible every time the quest has a time limit imposed. If youre not using time limits, youre lazy DMing. Like I said above, every single fantasy or action story ever from Commando to Labyrinth to Star Wars uses a time limit. To the point that the ticking timer on the bomb while the hero frantically works to defuse it is a cliche.

Use time adventures (but dont overuse them).

[Crusadr]

The reason 6-8 encounters a day starts to feel like a 'chore' is twofold:

1) It means a lot of medium encounters, and some easy encounters. Both of which tend to be pretty boring. The PCs know they are going to win because the fights are pretty darn one sided. The only question is if they blow a resource or not. Doing many of these every adventuring day just isnt' that fun.

2) It often just doesn't fit the story line. Traveling..... not going to happen. Invading someone's home...not going to happen. If every (or even a majority) of adventure plots require 6-8 encounters..... it just starts to feel forced.

Clearing out some caverns, or undead infested village, or some random dungeon.... it may be possible. But otherwise....not so much.

Not jumping in on either side of this but just wanted to say I agree with this line of thinking. I'm sure many on this forum would disagree but I don't even use any of the encounter tables, or minimum encounters/day, whatever it all is. I make encounters based on what makes sense to be happening in the world at the time. If I started throwing in 6-8 encounters/day to meet a limit yeah that would definitely feel forced.

[Malifice]

Not jumping in on either side of this but just wanted to say I agree with this line of thinking. I'm sure many on this forum would disagree but I don't even use any of the encounter tables, adjusted xp, minimum encounters/day, any of it. I make encounters based on what makes sense to be happening in the world at the time. If I started throwing in 6-8 encounters/day to meet a limit yeah that would definitely feel forced.

Its your group and your game mate, but I strongly suggest throwing a 6-8 encounter/ 2 short rest AD at your group and seeing how differently it plays (as an experiment if nothing else).

Shorter AD's make long rest classes (full casters barring the warlock, paladins and barbarians) dominate the short rest classes (warlock, fighter and monk) and it encourages nova tactics (requiring the DM to up the difficulty of the encounters and thus reinforcing the use of nova tactics and widening the gap between the classes further).

Its so super important to 5E's mechancis generally (short and long rest resource management) that to ignore it really messes with the games assumptions on class balance and encounter difficulty etc.

[MaxWilson]

Shorter AD's make long rest classes (full casters barring the warlock, paladins and barbarians) dominate the short rest classes (warlock, fighter and monk) and it encourages nova tactics (requiring the DM to up the difficulty of the encounters and thus reinforcing the use of nova tactics and widening the gap between the classes further).

An alternate way of discouraging nova tactics, which does not require you to distort the plot, is to play monsters more cagily, more willing to tactically retreat and remain a force-in-being instead of expending themselves in explosive doomed assaults that end in 3 rounds.

20 goblins may only be a Medium encounter to the PCs, but if they're repeatedly strafing the PCs from out of the darkness and then retreating, the players are more likely to fall into a siege mentality than a nova mentality, IME. It does not matter that the goblins are only a Medium threat on the DM's charts. What matters is that there's an unresolved threat hanging over their heads.

Warlocks and fighters will excel in this scenario. Wizards, not so much.

[Malifice]

An alternate way of discouraging nova tactics, which does not require you to distort the plot, is to play monsters more cagily, more willing to tactically retreat and remain a force-in-being instead of expending themselves in explosive doomed assaults that end in 3 rounds.

20 goblins may only be a Medium encounter to the PCs, but if they're repeatedly strafing the PCs from out of the darkness and then retreating, the players are more likely to fall into a siege mentality than a nova mentality, IME. It does not matter that the goblins are only a Medium threat on the DM's charts. What matters is that there's an unresolved threat hanging over their heads.

Warlocks and fighters will excel in this scenario. Wizards, not so much.

Exactly. Random encounters (that arent really random), environments too dangerous to long rest in, and reactive BBEGS and so forth are another method of enforcing the longer AD.

If your campaign is featuring casters dominating your encounters, and youre starting to increase the difficulty of your encounters to compensate, STOP and ask yourself if youre enforcing the 6-8 encounter/ 2 short rest adventuring day. The answer is almost certainly going to be 'No' (so you the DM are creating the problem to begin with). Increasing the difficulty of your 1-3 encounter adventuring days will simply reinforce this very paradigm (and increase the chance of a TPK) while making fighters and monks and warlocks suck even more (and making the long rest classes shine more).

Instead of upping the difficulty, increase the number of encounters. Ensure you give 2 short rests per adventuring day. No caster is going to have enough slots to dominate 6-8 medium to hard encounters per AD. With 2 short rests, your fighters have 3 action surges, 3 x sup dice, 3 second winds per AD, your Monks have (level x 3) ki points, and your warlocks have (spell slots x3) spells per day. Its the sweet spot where the classes are competitive, balanced and work together the best.

[Crusadr]

Its your group and your game mate, but I strongly suggest throwing a 6-8 encounter/ 2 short rest AD at your group and seeing how differently it plays (as an experiment if nothing else).

Shorter AD's make long rest classes (full casters barring the warlock, paladins and barbarians) dominate the short rest classes (warlock, fighter and monk) and it encourages nova tactics (requiring the DM to up the difficulty of the encounters and thus reinforcing the use of nova tactics and widening the gap between the classes further).

Its so super important to 5E's mechancis generally (short and long rest resource management) that to ignore it really messes with the games assumptions on class balance and encounter difficulty etc.

To be honest I've never paid attention to how many encounters there have been in an actual game day but as I said I don't plan for it, my group largely revolves around the players and what they do, so I throw battles in where they make sense to happen. That being said my groups have yet to move beyond level 5 and haven't really included any caster classes that would really show any sort of imbalance.

I definitely plan to try it out because balance is very important to me, I don't generally mess with any other rules. When I plan an encounter I choose what enemies will be present and what I think the party can handle, and then I add just a bit more so it's not a complete pushover. If the group is doing well then reinforcements possibly arrive, also if they're doing well then the enemies have a good chance at running away because who really is going to fight to the death the majority of the time?

Anyhow, that's neither here nor there I see your side and don't dispute it either.

[Malifice]

To be honest I've never paid attention to how many encounters there have been in an actual game day but as I said I don't plan for it, my group largely revolves around the players and what they do, so I throw battles in where they make sense to happen. That being said my groups have yet to move beyond level 5 and haven't really included any caster classes that would really show any sort of imbalance.

I definitely plan to try it out because balance is very important to me, I don't generally mess with any other rules. When I plan an encounter I choose what enemies will be present and what I think the party can handle, and then I add just a bit more so it's not a complete pushover. If the group is doing well then reinforcements possibly arrive, also if they're doing well then the enemies have a good chance at running away because who really is going to fight to the death the majority of the time?

Anyhow, that's neither here nor there I see your side and don't dispute it either.

Yeah cool mate. Like I said, go with what works for you.

I do see it with complaints about the game (particularly at high levels). Whenever I hear 'Casters are destroying my game' or 'why play a fighter when Paladins and Barbarians are better' or 'the CR/ XP budget system is rubbish and encounters are too weak' I always ask 'are you sticking to the 6-8/ 2 short rest AD recomendations from the DMG?' To which the answer is invariably 'No'.

One of the best thing about 5E for mine is the ease of preparation. It takes about 30 minutes to plan out 6-8 encounters (including drawing maps, placing treasure etc) leaving you plenty of time to work appropriate rest stops in the adventure etc.

[MaxWilson]

I do see it with complaints about the game (particularly at high levels). Whenever I hear 'Casters are destroying my game' or 'why play a fighter when Paladins and Barbarians are better' or 'the CR/ XP budget system is rubbish and encounters are too weak' I always ask 'are you sticking to the 6-8/ 2 short rest AD recomendations from the DMG?' To which the answer is invariably 'No'.

That's not true. Even if you follow the 6-8 recommendation (which I have done a time or two by accident, and it was extremely boring), 5E is still extremely easy. The root of the problem lies elsewhere, in the fact that 5E was designed for casual play. If you want it to be challenging you need to either boost the difficulty significantly or metagame instead of roleplay. (Since I hate metagaming as a DM I would recommend boosting the difficulty but YMMV.)

[djreynolds]

We are actually trying to shoot for 6 encounters. And I just blew my ****!(*#@(#*@&

So I'm sure next encounter I will be sucking up to the barbarian, but it is fun to cast some spells off, especially when the DM just throws his monsters out like that.

Trust me, he's gotten me plenty of times. How was I to know black puddings and lightning bolts make baby puddings? You'd figure it would come in the spell description from the merchant when he sold you the scroll. And then hey that lighting bolt also set the elven tree house and library on fire and your rope bridge is starting to burn.

But the fire giants in the Underdark are extra nasty.

And yes I meant teleportation circle, not teleport

12-13 levels are really great levels

[Sigreid]

One thing I rarely see in the 6-8 encounter discussion, other than in the form of xp budget, is encounter difficulty. If you're doing 6-9 per day you can't have every encounter force the party to expend all of their resources. That's a tough DM balancing act making the encounter not seem trivial, and making it so the party has most of their resources left over at the end of the fight.

[LordVonDerp]

The following poll results may be of interest to you:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/poll.php?pollid=6989&do=showresults

The link's broken.

[MaxWilson]

The link's broken.

Huh. That's weird. When I click on your quote it works. Does it work if you look at the actual thread and then click on "Show Results"?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469801-(Poll)-How-much-combat-per-adventuring-day

[JackPhoenix]

Both links work for me, must be on LordVonDerp's side

[LordVonDerp]

Time limit your adventures. Just like every fantasy story or action movie ever. Save the princess by 'X', stop the BBEG before 'X' or bad thing 'Y' happens, complete the quest by sunrise and get paid double etc.

Dont overuse timed adventures, but use them. Very rarely will you have an adventure movie, story or novel where the hero has all the time in the world to complete his quest.

Think about it for a bit. Most stories contain a time limit for success/ failure. Im struggling to think of a movie or novel that doesnt.



Most have a time limit of more than one day and most don't try to cram 8 fight scenes into a single day.


https://xkcd.com/311/

[LordVonDerp]

Huh. That's weird. When I click on your quote it works. Does it work if you look at the actual thread and then click on "Show Results"?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469801-(Poll)-How-much-combat-per-adventuring-day
That one works fine, the other one kept trying to get me to install an app before taking me to a page that said I couldn't add a poll because there was already a poll.

[Arkhios]

Do people really run 6-8 encounters per day though? In my ten years of gaming among 5+ groups, through both homebrew and official modules, having that many is a super rare occurrence. Usually it would only happen in a "the world is about to end in X hours" type of situation, or a siege. Otherwise adventurers are going to rest unless you force random encounters on them constantly, with no option to find a safe spot. Which is a jerk move.

I would've assumed 2-3 encounters per day would be closer to the norm. Things would get tedious 6-8 medium'ish encounters per day, every day, like a chore or something.

A difficulty between 6 to 8 encounters can vary from easy to deadly, and not all of them have to involve combat. In fact, a combat-only adventure day would be boring, and time-consuming. That's like ignoring the group's skills altogether. Being good at skills is just as fun than being good at kills. (see what I did there?)

I just ran a session in 5 hours and I designed it with 8 encounters. The players creatively avoided a few fights and saved a lot of time doing so.
8 encounters per day is very plausible, judging from my very recent experience.

A session usually should last around 4 to 5 hours. Longer than that might cause some people lose focus and attention.

[ClaimingLight]

This is an age old problem for D&D. It's stems from a DM who's no good at designing high-level challenges.

Once you're past level 10 (in any edition), you simply can't do old style encounters anymore. No more set-piece dungeons that you can simply teleport into and fly over. No more encounters in a forest with enemies who's main defense is a high HP score. Everything has to have a complicated and perhaps contrived way to reign you in. Frankly, it's a big weakness in the system as a whole.

But consider what The Giant is being forced to do. The only way to get Roy to fight Durkon alone was to cut the rest of the party off with Godmoot rules. If it had been V fighting Durkon directly, I can confidently tell you that the fight would have been one-sided.

Here's a thought I might employ in the DMs posistion:

• Your destructive fame has earned the fear of evil men the world over. An evil warlock, so advised by his elder gods, has devised a large device that you can plant on the ground around where you want to conduct your evil deeds. The device strips all of -your- spells of their power, countering them directly by exploiting their knowledge of your essence. The devices sold like hotcakes. Any baddie worth his salt has one now.

All of your spells fail within a mile of a functioning anti-you field. The only way to stop the field and allow your deathly magics purchase is to crush the crystal focus that floats between green lines of lightning at the top. Enter your bashers.

So now, rather than exclusively dealing dps, the job of your fighters is to cut their way through the hoards and protect you long enough to destroy the crystal (essentially winning the combat by allowing you to decimate everything).

[LordVonDerp]

This is an age old problem for D&D. It's stems from a DM who's no good at designing high-level challenges.

Once you're past level 10 (in any edition), you simply can't do old style encounters anymore. No more set-piece dungeons that you can simply teleport into and fly over. No more encounters in a forest with enemies who's main defense is a high HP score. Everything has to have a complicated and perhaps contrived way to reign you in. Frankly, it's a big weakness in the system as a whole.


I'd say it stems more from people not wanting to rely on contrivances to keep the game working.

[MaxWilson]

That one works fine, the other one kept trying to get me to install an app before taking me to a page that said I couldn't add a poll because there was already a poll.

Huh. Maybe that link doesn't work on smart phones. Anyway, I'm glad the second link worked. Hope the data is useful.


This is an age old problem for D&D. It's stems from a DM who's no good at designing high-level challenges.

Once you're past level 10 (in any edition), you simply can't do old style encounters anymore. No more set-piece dungeons that you can simply teleport into and fly over. No more encounters in a forest with enemies who's main defense is a high HP score. Everything has to have a complicated and perhaps contrived way to reign you in. Frankly, it's a big weakness in the system as a whole.

Another way to look at this is that as PCs level up, they gain more narrative power and everything becomes more sandbox-like. If the DM was previously relying on railroadish techniques, they cease to work and the DM has to either adapt or the campaign ends.

[Occasional Sage]

20 goblins may only be a Medium encounter to the PCs, but if they're repeatedly strafing the PCs from out of the darkness and then retreating, the players are more likely to fall into a siege mentality than a nova mentality, IME. It does not matter that the goblins are only a Medium threat on the DM's charts. What matters is that there's an unresolved threat hanging over their heads.

Warlocks and fighters will excel in this scenario. Wizards, not so much.

Except that tactics and terrain (and their interaction, really) are explicitly called out as increasing the CR of an encounter. That tactic is no longer a medium threat, but at least Hard, if not Deadly.

[Malifice]

Most have a time limit of more than one day and most don't try to cram 8 fight scenes into a single day.


https://xkcd.com/311/

They dont have to be eight fight scenes. Its 6-8 encounters. An encounter is something that the PCs are expected to expend resources on. When 'the camera zooms in'. It could be an environmental/ exploration challenge like a trapped and locked door, a hazard or a social challenge.


One thing I rarely see in the 6-8 encounter discussion, other than in the form of xp budget, is encounter difficulty. If you're doing 6-9 per day you can't have every encounter force the party to expend all of their resources. That's a tough DM balancing act making the encounter not seem trivial, and making it so the party has most of their resources left over at the end of the fight.

Absolutely. Use the 'Medium - Hard' encounter budget for most of your encounters. Throw the occasional easy one at them, throw the very occasional deadly one at them. They should be holding back on those long rest resources like spells untill theyre absolutely needed.

If your players are leading every battle with their highest level spells, then somethings going wrong.

[LordVonDerp]

They dont have to be eight fight scenes. Its 6-8 encounters. An encounter is something that the PCs are expected to expend resources on. When 'the camera zooms in'. It could be an environmental/ exploration challenge like a trapped and locked door, a hazard or a social challenge.



The problem is that most of those don't require expending resources.

[Malifice]

The problem is that most of those don't require expending resources.

Hit points are a resource. A very important one at that. Environmental hazards and traps drain hit points. Often they also drain spells.

A trapped and locked door has a very good chance of depleting hit points (requiring expenditure of other resources like lay on hands, spell slots to heal, potions) and/ or other resources like a knock spell, remove poison spell, levitate spell [to get the rogue out of the pit], fly spell [to go over the hazard], water breathing spell [to explore the underwater bit] etc. Know the abilities of your players and plan for them to enable intresting encounters [that the DM knows are also there to drain resources].

Social challenges are (or should) also be set up to drain resources, either directly or indirectly.


Either directly by spell slot expenditure via charm person or similar type abilites, or alternatively by having a resource penalty for failure (i.e. the thing you're speaking to becomes hostile and attacks you)

Or indirectly: Example - Convince the Orc shaman to assist you in overthrowing the Orc warchief. If you do so he helps you in the battle with the big Orc chief by casting bless (making the fight easier, and lessening the parties resource drain in that fight).


Remember, DnD is (at its core) a resource management game. Its your job as the DM to ensure the players are steadily burning resources, at roughly the same rate throughout the adventuring day. That includes getting your short rests/ encounter/ long rest ratio correct, and putting enough encounters in front of the party so the classes all balance, are challenged equally and get a chance to shine.

[mgshamster]

Hit points are a resource. A very important one at that. Environmental hazards and traps drain hit points. Often they also drain spells.

A trapped and locked door has a very good chance of depleting hit points (requiring expenditure of other resources like lay on hands, spell slots to heal, potions) and/ or other resources like a knock spell, remove poison spell, levitate spell [to get the rogue out of the pit], fly spell [to go over the hazard], water breathing spell [to explore the underwater bit] etc. Know the abilities of your players and plan for them to enable intresting encounters [that the DM knows are also there to drain resources].

Social challenges are (or should) also be set up to drain resources, either directly or indirectly.


Either directly by spell slot expenditure via charm person or similar type abilites, or alternatively by having a resource penalty for failure (i.e. the thing you're speaking to becomes hostile and attacks you)

Or indirectly: Example - Convince the Orc shaman to assist you in overthrowing the Orc warchief. If you do so he helps you in the battle with the big Orc chief by casting bless (making the fight easier, and lessening the parties resource drain in that fight).


Remember, DnD is (at its core) a resource management game. Its your job as the DM to ensure the players are steadily burning resources, at roughly the same rate throughout the adventuring day. That includes getting your short rests/ encounter/ long rest ratio correct, and putting enough encounters in front of the party so the classes all balance, are challenged equally and get a chance to shine.

I like your advice. One thing I'd add is that if you're the type of GM who only throws maybe 1-2 encounters per day, then you might want to switch to gritty realism rest periods (8 hours is a short rest, 7 days is a long rest) to account for the slower encounter rate.

Another thing I did in Out of the Abyss was make long rests more dangerous. They have Bad Dreams, which gives a cumulative 10% chance for a long rest to not work. Once it happens, the counter resets. They have fewer encounters per day, but sometimes a long rest doesn't work.

[LordVonDerp]

[QUOTE=Malifice;20396636]Hit points are a resource. A very important one at that. Environmental hazards and traps drain hit points. Often they also drain spells.

A trapped and locked door has a very good chance of depleting hit points (requiring expenditure of other resources like lay on hands, spell slots to heal, potions) and/ or other resources like a knock spell, remove poison spell, levitate spell [to get the rogue out of the pit], fly spell [to go over the hazard], water breathing spell [to explore the underwater bit] etc. Know the abilities of your players and plan for them to enable intresting encounters [that the DM knows are also there to drain resources].

Social challenges are (or should) also be set up to drain resources, either directly or indirectly.


Either directly by spell slot expenditure via charm person or similar type abilites, or alternatively by having a resource penalty for failure (i.e. the thing you're speaking to becomes hostile and attacks you)

Or indirectly: Example - Convince the Orc shaman to assist you in overthrowing the Orc warchief. If you do so he helps you in the battle with the big Orc chief by casting bless (making the fight easier, and lessening the parties resource drain in that fight).
/QUOTE]

Hit points are a resource, yes, but not one that has a big impact on game balance. It usually turns into either having enough or not and proceed accordingly.

Most of the noncombat challenges you mentioned are things that only expend resources on failure, or rely mainly on skill characters that don't have resource management.

[Malifice]

Hit points are a resource, yes, but not one that has a big impact on game balance. It usually turns into either having enough or not and proceed accordingly.

'Proceed accordingly' means (if youve lost hit points) is either expend hit dice (another resource) followed by the Cleric, Paladin, Bard, Ranger or Druid casting cure wounds (draining spell slots).

Hit point attrition is never left alone. You should never enter a combat with party members already down on HP if you can avoid it.


Most of the noncombat challenges you mentioned are things that only expend resources on failure, or rely mainly on skill characters that don't have resource management.

Which is itself a form of resource management by the players. If the Bard with expertise in persuasion and a huge charisma can convince the Orc shaman to help the party, the party doesnt otherwise need to expend resources (like charm person). If the rogue detects the trap before it goes off, the party doesnt need to expend resources on healing the hit point damage or the poisoned condition. If the rogue also manages to pick the lock, the wizard saves himself a knock spell, or the fighter doesnt have to kick the door down (with the noise potentially drawing a 'random' encounter and triggering extra resource management). And so forth.

Success on an environmental, trap or social challenge without resorting to resources (spell slots and similar) mean by the time the party gets to the final encounter of the AD (the BBEG) they have more resources available to them to overcome the challenge, which is in and of itself another reward.

If your Wizard wants to get into God mode and 'magic' every challenge to oblivion (flying over pits the party could have avoided with a rope, knocking open doors the thief could have picked open, charming social challenges the bard could have faced into helping, fireball novaing an easy/ medium encounter that the fighter could have mopped up in a few rounds with little risk etc) on the way to the final encounter of the AD, then by the time you reach the BBEG, the wizard is going to be out of slots and unable to contribute meaningfully to the fight (and its probably the hardest fight of the day) which increases the fights difficulty.

You use the longer 6-8 encounter AD to make players ration class resources (hit points, hit dice, spell slots, sup dice, ki points, sorcery points, action surge, smites, item charges, etc) and think before they nova. It encourages teamwork and makes the expenditure of a resource (like a high level spell slot, or an action surge) a meaningful choice, rather than an automatic 'go to' button.

If you use the 6-8 encounter /2 SR as your default 'go-to' AD for around 50 percent of the time, then players will naturally police themselves (rationing resources like spells, and special abilities) accordingly and it becomes a self regulating system - even on AD's that dont follow this guideline.

[MaxWilson]

Except that tactics and terrain (and their interaction, really) are explicitly called out as increasing the CR of an encounter. That tactic is no longer a medium threat, but at least Hard, if not Deadly.

Do you have a quote for that? I see nothing on DMG page 85 that calls out "tactics" as increasing the rated difficulty of the encounter. Lopsided advantages like "you're fighting magma mephits in a flaming furnace" do increase the rated difficulty of the encounter, but "these goblins play hit-and-run instead of charging blindly in" do not, or at least there is no indication of it.

And neither one changes the adventuring day budget, actually. The fact that environmental adjustments to difficulty do not affect daily XP budgets is one of the biggest flaws in 5E's encounter balancing system--fighting four pairs of Stone Giants on the edge of a cliff face will absolutely drain more resources than fighting four pairs of Stone Giants on an infinite featureless plain, but the official guidelines call for the exact same number of Stone Giant encounters in either case. (Yet another reason to jettison the official guidelines and eyeball it instead, since you're going to wind up eyeballing things anyway.)

Substantively, I agree with you: twenty goblins playing hit and run is deadly-ish. I've TPKed small mid-high-level parties with similar amounts of drow, before the players learned to cope. I just don't think they are rated by DMG rules as their actual deadliness deserves.

[Occasional Sage]

Do you have a quote for that? I see nothing on DMG page 85 that calls out "tactics" as increasing the rated difficulty of the encounter. Lopsided advantages like "you're fighting magma mephits in a flaming furnace" do increase the rated difficulty of the encounter, but "these goblins play hit-and-run instead of charging blindly in" do not, or at least there is no indication of it.


Rereading, I don't see it either. Perhaps I'm imagining things, or perhaps it's elsewhere. Either way, for hit-and-run tactics to succeed against the PCs there would probably be "a situation which greatly hinders their mobility" relative to the attackers, or else there'd be a chase sequence and some goblins killed. Also, I'd refer to p83's "Multipart Encounters" for alternate guidelines on adjusting the difficulty; simply because they're the same critters doesn't mean that they aren't coming in waves and preventing short-rest resource gains.



Substantively, I agree with you: twenty goblins playing hit and run is deadly-ish. I've TPKed small mid-high-level parties with similar amounts of drow, before the players learned to cope. I just don't think they are rated by DMG rules as their actual deadliness deserves.


Frankly, I would call tactics an oversight. In the following section they discuss terrain and defensive positioning as adding to the suspense of combats; what adds suspense other than greater risk of failure, i.e. increased difficulty? Intelligence is far more dangerous than brawn, and the writers seem to acknowledge that. Just, apparently, without codifying it.

[JoeJ]

Frankly, I would call tactics an oversight. In the following section they discuss terrain and defensive positioning as adding to the suspense of combats; what adds suspense other than greater risk of failure, i.e. increased difficulty? Intelligence is far more dangerous than brawn, and the writers seem to acknowledge that. Just, apparently, without codifying it.

How would you codify it? Adjust the CR based on how hard the DM is trying to win? Even if you did that, you'd have to take into account the level of tactical skill the DM actually has compared with the skill that the other players have.

I wouldn't call it an oversight, just a factor that can't reasonably be quantified.

[pwykersotz]

Do you have a quote for that? I see nothing on DMG page 85 that calls out "tactics" as increasing the rated difficulty of the encounter. Lopsided advantages like "you're fighting magma mephits in a flaming furnace" do increase the rated difficulty of the encounter, but "these goblins play hit-and-run instead of charging blindly in" do not, or at least there is no indication of it.

The list isn't all inclusive, I would classify enemies using tactics like that as having an advantage that players don't.

[MaxWilson]

The list isn't all inclusive, I would classify enemies using tactics like that as having an advantage that players don't.

More like "for once having an advantage that the players do." If you're going to downgrade encounter difficulty for tactics and CAW capabilities, then you can just skip encounter evaluation entirely and just rate everything as Easy, because PCs always have access to stuff monsters don't. Shadow Monk in the party? Downgrades difficulty by one step because PCs can get surprise. Wizard? Downgrades difficulty because Wall of Force. Moon Druid? Downgrades difficulty because of Spike Growth/etc. This fighter is a grappler with defense style and a player who knows how to exploit it? Downgrade difficulty one step because he can control one opponent.

The raw capabilities of Nimble Escape are already factored into monster CR, just as PC capabilities are factored into their level. Bumping the encounter difficulty up (or down) by fiat because of their abilities seems like double-counting.

I don't dispute that accounting for PC/monster tactics and abilities is a smart thing to do if you want an actual evaluation of threat rating. I do not, however, see the DMG rules suggesting any such thing, and doing so is equivalent to tossing out the encounter system anyway and just relying on your intuitive guess at who is likely to have the advantage. Will it be the Nimble Escape Goblins, or the PCs with a Shadow Monk, a Sharpshooter, and Dancing Lights? The answer depends entirely on how good your players are at Combat As War, so are you going to adjust encounter difficulty based on your knowledge of player skill instead of PC/monster stats? The DMG never suggests any such thing.

[pwykersotz]

More like "for once having an advantage that the players do." If you're going to downgrade encounter difficulty for tactics and CAW capabilities, then you can just skip encounter evaluation entirely and just rate everything as Easy, because PCs always have access to stuff monsters don't. Shadow Monk in the party? Downgrades difficulty by one step because PCs can get surprise. Wizard? Downgrades difficulty because Wall of Force. Moon Druid? Downgrades difficulty because of Spike Growth/etc. This fighter is a grappler with defense style and a player who knows how to exploit it? Downgrade difficulty one step because he can control one opponent.

The raw capabilities of Nimble Escape are already factored into monster CR, just as PC capabilities are factored into their level. Bumping the encounter difficulty up (or down) by fiat because of their abilities seems like double-counting.

I don't dispute that accounting for PC/monster tactics and abilities is a smart thing to do if you want an actual evaluation of threat rating. I do not, however, see the DMG rules suggesting any such thing, and doing so is equivalent to tossing out the encounter system anyway and just relying on your intuitive guess at who is likely to have the advantage. Will it be the Nimble Escape Goblins, or the PCs with a Shadow Monk, a Sharpshooter, and Dancing Lights? The answer depends entirely on how good your players are at Combat As War, so are you going to adjust encounter difficulty based on your knowledge of player skill instead of PC/monster stats? The DMG never suggests any such thing.

Good points, all. My perspective:

The books assume that a party will consist of several different classes, all with different features and capabilities. They do not bring up every tactic a PC could implement, because that would be an exercise in futility. Instead, they present monsters with certain capabilities measured on raw combat potential. This assumes that the monster will be allowed to use that combat potential, and that the players will be able to use theirs.

A denial of either side of these assumptions merits a re-evaluation of the challenge. Just like it's easier when players surprise the goblins, it's harder when the goblins surprise the players. If as a DM you are orchestrating things to attempt to deny players the ability to use their combat prowess against the enemy (which you can do accurately because, unlike the designers, you know your party composition), it merits considering it a harder challenge. I infer that this is relevant based on page 85. It is not supposed to alter exp gains, just like surprising the goblins doesn't dock your exp, but it might make you alter the other encounters for the day on the fly if you're focused on giving the party the "recommended" balance of easy/medium/hard/deadly encounters for the day.

[djreynolds]

So I play tonight, so we will see if going spell happy is going to kill me. I wasted my big 6th and 7th level spell, and our cleric wasted a heal spell so because of that we are not even short resting, otherwise, it seems like a huge waste of his spell.

Fire giants are tough, we will see if we can survive our mismanagement of resources and more importantly if my wizard can reign it in and cast appropriate spells.

[RickAllison]

So I play tonight, so we will see if going spell happy is going to kill me. I wasted my big 6th and 7th level spell, and our cleric wasted a heal spell so because of that we are not even short resting, otherwise, it seems like a huge waste of his spell.

Fire giants are tough, we will see if we can survive our mismanagement of resources and more importantly if my wizard can reign it in and cast appropriate spells.

Never forget that a well-timed Fog Cloud can potentially be the greatest thing one can use. Darkvision, Truesight, anything but Blindsight/vision is helpless to a good old cloud!

[djreynolds]

Never forget that a well-timed Fog Cloud can potentially be the greatest thing one can use. Darkvision, Truesight, anything but Blindsight/vision is helpless to a good old cloud!

Yes, very good advice. I've used it once in the underdark coming off a river boat. Excellent choice. So many spells to choose from. I find I often have like 7 3rd level spells prepared, some much utility in those.

I will make sure to have fog cloud prepared!

[lperkins2]

Question?

Is this supposed to happen? After sucking it up for all these levels, my party members are just looking down at the table as I crush the enemy. They are only fit to carry my spell book. Am I supposed to go all arrogant and crazy when I get 6th and 7th level spells?

How do I get them back into the game? Do I go back to just buffing them up and spamming cantrips? Or is this how the world turns? I mean the DM dumbly set up enemy 30ft apart from each other, was I not supposed to cast chain lighting?

Am I really "stealing kills" by finishing off a guy with finger of death and gaining a nice "meat" shield?

They are now sad when my turn comes up. How do I get them back into the fold?

Other people have done a reasonable job of addressing the nature of the issue (the encounters being unideally set up), so I'll try not to cover the same ground.

Short answers:
Against the encounters you've been facing? Yes
Arrogant? Depends on the PC and setting, but remember there's always a bigger fish.

Get the players back into the game? You could go to support, if you like doing that (I do), but it's the GMs job to supply encounters the party will enjoy (fewer, tougher, more spread out monsters, utilizing proper cover go a long way to mitigating crowd control).

Killstealing? No, unless you have bad rules about how loot is divided. (100hp enemy, fighter hits for 50, you hit for 50 should be pretty much equal to you hit, then he hits)

Getting them back into the fold? Probably need to talk to everyone at the start of the session to go over how to address the situation. Others have explained the 'recommended' pacing, encounter difficulty, et al, but I rather strongly dislike the '8 hour adventuring day/8 encounter/day', so I thought I'd share my experience avoiding this issue and give some advice on ways to solve it without spending hours rolling dice...

The most recent campaign I ran had about 1 combat encounter per week (civilised land, no magical transportation) and a couple of non-combat 'traveling' encounters a day (guard patrols, old men, merchants, other travelers). The thing is, when you're designing encounters in that sort of a system, you have to completely chuck the recommended XP per day and the rest of it. 3.5's Complete Psionic had a warning for DMs including psionic NPCs as adversaries. Basically, the PCs can expect the possibility of another fight later, so a PC psion will need to save some power points for in case rest gets interrupted, the NPC is more likely to only care about surviving this fight, so will go Nova from turn 1. The solution? Give the NPC fewer power points than the PC version has. That advice applies here, in reverse.
Often the 'CR appropriate' monsters are pathetically weak, since either the party is expected to conserve resources, or is already low on resources. If you're going to go with 1 or 2 encounters a day, you'll need to chuck the XP/encounter stuff completely, not that it's that good to start with...

Stereotypical party, level 13, 3 trolls is a 'medium' encounter, 4-5 is 'hard', mostly by virtue of the trolls regeneration. The trolls have AC 15, 84 HP, +7 to hit, for 7,11,11, against AC 17, they'll do 14 pts of damage per round. 3 of them will do 42 pts per round, average. The level 13 fighter with good con, will have around 150 HP, so can survive 3 rounds of being full attacked by the trolls. Meanwhile, he can easily deal an average of 36 damage a round, if he action surges, he could do 70ish on the first round. If the party rogue can do another 10, and the wizard can fire cantrip, that's one down in the first round, the fighter will then only be taking 28 hp a turn, and will last for 6 turns before needing any healing, which he can supply as a bonus action for another 1d10+13. Note that this ignores the cleric doing anything, which further pushes the fight in favour of the PCs.

The trolls could go after the other party members (depending on terrain), but that just works in the party's favour, since the fighter is the one with the best sustained DPS, the other party members can just kite if a troll goes after them. At most, the wizard or cleric will need to soak one attack when they use fire to finish off a troll. But that's unlikely in general, since trolls are dumb, they'll likely respond to the alpha that's directly challenging them.

At the other end of the spectrum, 54 basic skeletons has exactly the same 'adjusted XP' as the 3 trolls, and you could send in 4 waves of them and still be under the 'XP/day' allotment. Meanwhile, 50 skeletons will land a crit basically every round, and against an AC 14 character deal around 125 damage per round with their shortbows (87 damage / round at AC 17). Obviously the party will toast them individually pretty quick, but if they're too spread out for AOEs, the party could end up only downing 10 or so a round, while they focus-fire on the squishies, and 1 minute after combat ends another 'encounter' (54 more skeletons) starts.

Hence why I think the whole system is kinda looney, and only good for general advice for new DMs...




There's a couple of solutions that work well, but basically they fall into 3 broad categories: Weaken your character; strengthen the rest of the party; utilize the power disparity.

The other answers have mostly been in the 'weaken your character' group, by making you fight more between getting your spells back, by the last fight of the day you'd be tossing cantrips (unless you ration from the get-go). That works, but seriously, combat like that gets boring...

I mentioned above a more subtle way to weaken your character, 6 BGs with 30hp each and 3BGs with 60hp each both take the same total damage to defeat, but your contribution vs the 2nd option will be less than the first option. Having the BGs use good tactics helps even more (take cover, block line of sight between each other, spread out, use ranged weapons). Another idea (was sorta mentioned, but badly contrived), is that you are painting a target on yourself, and you're squishy. If we up the challenge to something a bit more even (4 level 10 player-class NPCs, with some hired mooks, would be a 'Hard' encounter), you chainlightning the mooks, pretty much offing them, then the 4 enemy PC-NPCs focus-fire on you, and can probably dish out more damage than your max HP. The reason is fairly simple, you're the biggest threat, and you're in range of our ranged weapons. If that is the standard reply to an enemy caster (in the same way that the party will focus on the most dangerous enemies first), pretty soon you'll want to be hanging back at extreme range, buffing the party, and saving FoD and the like for emergencies.

The second category is probably the hardest, from the sounds of it you other party members aren't excellently optimised, so short of giving them magic gear or something, I'm not sure what you could do, maybe improve tactics...


What is probably the most rewarding approach is to take advantage of the power disparity. I do this a lot in any kind of tactical combat game, when you have one character able to basically solo any group of enemies.
1. Find a natural division in the combat map.
2. Split the party.
So, say you're defending a room from 2 entrances, mage+rogue (or maybe mage alone) take one entrance, bard+cleric+fighter take the other. Works best if they're close enough to offer support to each other, but that isn't strictly needed. Had a campaign where one player would always optimize their character much more than the other players (paladin built to not die), so he'd typically end up soloing in on one side of the map while the other players worked together to clear the other direction. This can be a challenge to keep the pacing right, but is often the most rewarding solution when you can make it work. (Gee, where did all these bodies come from? Is this Smith's work? Or is something else going on...)


I should probably specify that we always run combat-as-war, and usually have 3-4 incredibly intelligent players in the party, I'm fairly smart, but it's simply not possible to reliably out-think 3 other smart people in real time. So once the combat starts, I'm doing my absolute best to kill the party with the monsters available; or, failing that, the monsters will do their best to get away.

[djreynolds]

Other people have done a reasonable job of addressing the nature of the issue (the encounters being unideally set up), so I'll try not to cover the same ground.

Short answers:
Against the encounters you've been facing? Yes
Arrogant? Depends on the PC and setting, but remember there's always a bigger fish.

Get the players back into the game? You could go to support, if you like doing that (I do), but it's the GMs job to supply encounters the party will enjoy (fewer, tougher, more spread out monsters, utilizing proper cover go a long way to mitigating crowd control).

Killstealing? No, unless you have bad rules about how loot is divided. (100hp enemy, fighter hits for 50, you hit for 50 should be pretty much equal to you hit, then he hits)

Getting them back into the fold? Probably need to talk to everyone at the start of the session to go over how to address the situation. Others have explained the 'recommended' pacing, encounter difficulty, et al, but I rather strongly dislike the '8 hour adventuring day/8 encounter/day', so I thought I'd share my experience avoiding this issue and give some advice on ways to solve it without spending hours rolling dice...

The most recent campaign I ran had about 1 combat encounter per week (civilised land, no magical transportation) and a couple of non-combat 'traveling' encounters a day (guard patrols, old men, merchants, other travelers). The thing is, when you're designing encounters in that sort of a system, you have to completely chuck the recommended XP per day and the rest of it. 3.5's Complete Psionic had a warning for DMs including psionic NPCs as adversaries. Basically, the PCs can expect the possibility of another fight later, so a PC psion will need to save some power points for in case rest gets interrupted, the NPC is more likely to only care about surviving this fight, so will go Nova from turn 1. The solution? Give the NPC fewer power points than the PC version has. That advice applies here, in reverse.
Often the 'CR appropriate' monsters are pathetically weak, since either the party is expected to conserve resources, or is already low on resources. If you're going to go with 1 or 2 encounters a day, you'll need to chuck the XP/encounter stuff completely, not that it's that good to start with...

Stereotypical party, level 13, 3 trolls is a 'medium' encounter, 4-5 is 'hard', mostly by virtue of the trolls regeneration. The trolls have AC 15, 84 HP, +7 to hit, for 7,11,11, against AC 17, they'll do 14 pts of damage per round. 3 of them will do 42 pts per round, average. The level 13 fighter with good con, will have around 150 HP, so can survive 3 rounds of being full attacked by the trolls. Meanwhile, he can easily deal an average of 36 damage a round, if he action surges, he could do 70ish on the first round. If the party rogue can do another 10, and the wizard can fire cantrip, that's one down in the first round, the fighter will then only be taking 28 hp a turn, and will last for 6 turns before needing any healing, which he can supply as a bonus action for another 1d10+13. Note that this ignores the cleric doing anything, which further pushes the fight in favour of the PCs.

The trolls could go after the other party members (depending on terrain), but that just works in the party's favour, since the fighter is the one with the best sustained DPS, the other party members can just kite if a troll goes after them. At most, the wizard or cleric will need to soak one attack when they use fire to finish off a troll. But that's unlikely in general, since trolls are dumb, they'll likely respond to the alpha that's directly challenging them.

At the other end of the spectrum, 54 basic skeletons has exactly the same 'adjusted XP' as the 3 trolls, and you could send in 4 waves of them and still be under the 'XP/day' allotment. Meanwhile, 50 skeletons will land a crit basically every round, and against an AC 14 character deal around 125 damage per round with their shortbows (87 damage / round at AC 17). Obviously the party will toast them individually pretty quick, but if they're too spread out for AOEs, the party could end up only downing 10 or so a round, while they focus-fire on the squishies, and 1 minute after combat ends another 'encounter' (54 more skeletons) starts.

Hence why I think the whole system is kinda looney, and only good for general advice for new DMs...




There's a couple of solutions that work well, but basically they fall into 3 broad categories: Weaken your character; strengthen the rest of the party; utilize the power disparity.

The other answers have mostly been in the 'weaken your character' group, by making you fight more between getting your spells back, by the last fight of the day you'd be tossing cantrips (unless you ration from the get-go). That works, but seriously, combat like that gets boring...

I mentioned above a more subtle way to weaken your character, 6 BGs with 30hp each and 3BGs with 60hp each both take the same total damage to defeat, but your contribution vs the 2nd option will be less than the first option. Having the BGs use good tactics helps even more (take cover, block line of sight between each other, spread out, use ranged weapons). Another idea (was sorta mentioned, but badly contrived), is that you are painting a target on yourself, and you're squishy. If we up the challenge to something a bit more even (4 level 10 player-class NPCs, with some hired mooks, would be a 'Hard' encounter), you chainlightning the mooks, pretty much offing them, then the 4 enemy PC-NPCs focus-fire on you, and can probably dish out more damage than your max HP. The reason is fairly simple, you're the biggest threat, and you're in range of our ranged weapons. If that is the standard reply to an enemy caster (in the same way that the party will focus on the most dangerous enemies first), pretty soon you'll want to be hanging back at extreme range, buffing the party, and saving FoD and the like for emergencies.

The second category is probably the hardest, from the sounds of it you other party members aren't excellently optimised, so short of giving them magic gear or something, I'm not sure what you could do, maybe improve tactics...


What is probably the most rewarding approach is to take advantage of the power disparity. I do this a lot in any kind of tactical combat game, when you have one character able to basically solo any group of enemies.
1. Find a natural division in the combat map.
2. Split the party.
So, say you're defending a room from 2 entrances, mage+rogue (or maybe mage alone) take one entrance, bard+cleric+fighter take the other. Works best if they're close enough to offer support to each other, but that isn't strictly needed. Had a campaign where one player would always optimize their character much more than the other players (paladin built to not die), so he'd typically end up soloing in on one side of the map while the other players worked together to clear the other direction. This can be a challenge to keep the pacing right, but is often the most rewarding solution when you can make it work. (Gee, where did all these bodies come from? Is this Smith's work? Or is something else going on...)


I should probably specify that we always run combat-as-war, and usually have 3-4 incredibly intelligent players in the party, I'm fairly smart, but it's simply not possible to reliably out-think 3 other smart people in real time. So once the combat starts, I'm doing my absolute best to kill the party with the monsters available; or, failing that, the monsters will do their best to get away.

Hey that is some well thought out and great advice. Thanks

I'm enjoying this wizard. I will get back to hasting party members, and buffs. But nukes are so much fun.

[Malifice]

An alternative is to just use a milestone system instead of resting. You get a short rest recharge every 2 encounters or after a nights rest (which ever comes first) or you get a long rest recharge after a week of downtime or six encounters and a nights rest whichever comes first.

[djreynolds]

I like the rest system, but I've always had one concern

Some people are meeting up once a week to play, and begin the night coming off a long rest and ending the night on a long rest, and I wish the DMG was more concrete as to how to run a campaign for people who might exist in the world. Where we had the fighter's abilities using short/long rest gaming or long rest version only variant.

I personally like the short rest, its cool. It feels like a breather to collect yourself and see how many beans, bullets, and bandages you used and prepare for the next fight that's right around the corner. And you long rest when possible.

But it is nice to end the session on a long rest.

[MaxWilson]

Good points, all. My perspective:

The books assume that a party will consist of several different classes, all with different features and capabilities. They do not bring up every tactic a PC could implement, because that would be an exercise in futility. Instead, they present monsters with certain capabilities measured on raw combat potential. This assumes that the monster will be allowed to use that combat potential, and that the players will be able to use theirs.

A denial of either side of these assumptions merits a re-evaluation of the challenge. Just like it's easier when players surprise the goblins, it's harder when the goblins surprise the players. If as a DM you are orchestrating things to attempt to deny players the ability to use their combat prowess against the enemy (which you can do accurately because, unlike the designers, you know your party composition), it merits considering it a harder challenge. I infer that this is relevant based on page 85. It is not supposed to alter exp gains, just like surprising the goblins doesn't dock your exp, but it might make you alter the other encounters for the day on the fly if you're focused on giving the party the "recommended" balance of easy/medium/hard/deadly encounters for the day.

Hit-and-run tactics don't require the goblins to achieve surprise, especially not more than once. The value of hit-and-run lies largely in its ability to run out spell durations, increase psychological tension, and (if it works) to deny players the opportunity to concentrate their force on the poor goblins via AoEs/multiattacks or similar. You have to assume though that at least a few goblins are going to die on each run. Yes, some player abilities (like the opportunity to Fireball a nice juicy group of 12 goblins to death) are being denied by the goblins declining to stick their heads in a hangman's noose and pull it tight; but that is already accounted for by the fact that goblins have missile weapons and Nimble Escape and Stealth +6 right in the stat block.

Your viewpoint is a valid one, and in fact I don't see any harm in it because encounter difficulty is irrelevant either way (according to DMG guidelines) when designing an adventuring day. Excuse me for a second while I rant:

<rant>
One of the more interesting features/weaknesses of 5E's adventure design guidelines is that DMG guidelines for the adventuring day officially don't care about environmental factors/situational advantages. Even if they increase the rated difficulty of an encounter, they don't alter the adjusted XP total, so they don't alter the way you compute the daily XP budget, which means you're right back to "eyeball it" as your adventure design method.
</rant>

So no matter how you count goblin tactics, the only thing they're officially supposed to alter is... well, basically nothing. You might count the goblins as a Hard fight instead of Medium, unless you intuitively just don't like having an extended Hard encounter that is intended to make an entire area of the dungeon unsafe until the encounter is dealt with, that label "Hard" changes nothing.

[pwykersotz]

Hit-and-run tactics don't require the goblins to achieve surprise, especially not more than once. The value of hit-and-run lies largely in its ability to run out spell durations, increase psychological tension, and (if it works) to deny players the opportunity to concentrate their force on the poor goblins via AoEs/multiattacks or similar. You have to assume though that at least a few goblins are going to die on each run. Yes, some player abilities (like the opportunity to Fireball a nice juicy group of 12 goblins to death) are being denied by the goblins declining to stick their heads in a hangman's noose and pull it tight; but that is already accounted for by the fact that goblins have missile weapons and Nimble Escape and Stealth +6 right in the stat block.

Your viewpoint is a valid one, and in fact I don't see any harm in it because encounter difficulty is irrelevant either way (according to DMG guidelines) when designing an adventuring day. Excuse me for a second while I rant:

<rant>
One of the more interesting features/weaknesses of 5E's adventure design guidelines is that DMG guidelines for the adventuring day officially don't care about environmental factors/situational advantages. Even if they increase the rated difficulty of an encounter, they don't alter the adjusted XP total, so they don't alter the way you compute the daily XP budget, which means you're right back to "eyeball it" as your adventure design method.
</rant>

So no matter how you count goblin tactics, the only thing they're officially supposed to alter is... well, basically nothing. You might count the goblins as a Hard fight instead of Medium, unless you intuitively just don't like having an extended Hard encounter that is intended to make an entire area of the dungeon unsafe until the encounter is dealt with, that label "Hard" changes nothing.

Agreed that it's "interesting". I'm not sure if it's more or less interesting than players deliberately sabotaging their own efforts to make it as tough as possible to get more exp out of a challenge though. Because that's what you encourage if you adjust exp, loot, or anything else based on encounter difficulty. I suppose you could institute some sort of cap where you only got an amount of exp equal to the best case scenario of tackling the enemies, but that doesn't feel right to me either, because it punishes too many intangibles. It could work with a subjective arbitration method, where if the DM sees the party making dumb choices to max exp gain then a lesser value is given out instead, but that has its own flaws. It's a tough issue either way.

I wholeheartedly agree that environments/situations should be a factor in exp awarded as well as difficulty. This conversation is making me rethink how I want to give out exp to my party. :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

Agreed that it's "interesting". I'm not sure if it's more or less interesting than players deliberately sabotaging their own efforts to make it as tough as possible to get more exp out of a challenge though. Because that's what you encourage if you adjust exp, loot, or anything else based on encounter difficulty. I suppose you could institute some sort of cap where you only got an amount of exp equal to the best case scenario of tackling the enemies, but that doesn't feel right to me either, because it punishes too many intangibles. It could work with a subjective arbitration method, where if the DM sees the party making dumb choices to max exp gain then a lesser value is given out instead, but that has its own flaws. It's a tough issue either way.

I wholeheartedly agree that environments/situations should be a factor in exp awarded as well as difficulty. This conversation is making me rethink how I want to give out exp to my party. :smallsmile:

XP awards are a different subject which I was not trying to raise. I'm just talking about the base "adventuring day" guidelines in the DMG. As long as the PCs fight X amount of adjusted XP of monsters, the guideline is happy. It doesn't care whether you build an adventure with forty goblins playing Tucker's kobolds in a nasty rat warren with poor visibility that favors the goblins, or forty goblins standing shoulder-to-shoulder in broad daylight on the tundra. Either way it's worth the same fraction of your daily XP budget. Conclusion: DMG guidelines are bad at predicting actual difficulty of an adventure. They ignore important factors. You're better off eyeballing based on experience.

As far as XP awards go: how you award XP is a primary factor in how your players approach the game. If you want them to appreciate and seek out Tucker's kobolds, give extra XP for engaging a smart enemy in favourable terrain. If you want them to fear, loathe, and avoid them, give out the regular XP. The latter usage is good if harassment from Tucker's kobolds is your answer to the five-minute adventuring day. It's good to have some enemies that murderhobos don't want to fight.

[djreynolds]

So we got to a river tonight to cross it, our rogue again failed her wisdom save, and failed her real brain check and just didn't jump it with a rope.

Our barbarian swam across, cool. But we got split up and ambushed by a glabrezu on each side of the river.

Thank gods it was not real life, so our barbarian, hasted by me, held down one as the rest of us got busy.

Our cleric, monk, and warlock were caught in the snow (real life) so the rest of the party held. Barbarian resistance vs demon resistance, eerily similar.

Using up those 6th and 7th level spells only hurt because, Sunbeam, 6th level, is radiant damage and without the cleric was our only means of radiant damage.

[Malifice]

XP awards are a different subject which I was not trying to raise. I'm just talking about the base "adventuring day" guidelines in the DMG. As long as the PCs fight X amount of adjusted XP of monsters, the guideline is happy. It doesn't care whether you build an adventure with forty goblins playing Tucker's kobolds in a nasty rat warren with poor visibility that favors the goblins, or forty goblins standing shoulder-to-shoulder in broad daylight on the tundra. Either way it's worth the same fraction of your daily XP budget. Conclusion: DMG guidelines are bad at predicting actual difficulty of an adventure. They ignore important factors. You're better off eyeballing based on experience.

This isnt true at all.

One fight with a whole days XP is very different to 8 fights with the same XP, broken up by a few short rests.

In addition to the adventuring day xp, the game assumes 6-8 encounters and 2ish short rests. Powers like action surge, warlock spell slots, second wind and superiority dice are balanced against long rest resources with the assumption they refresh two-three times per day and having to stretch them over 6-8 encounters. Ditto hit points. One fight per day ignores hit dice recovery of hit points.

If you insist on 'one - two encounters per day' style of play, simply use the longer rest variant from the DMG. Otherwise you're short changing short rest dependent classes horribly.

Failing that, triple the amount of times a short rest recovery power can be used per long rest, and make them recovered by long rests.

BM Fighter 3's get 3 action surges, and 12 superiority dice and 3 second winds per long rest. Warlock 3's get 6 x 2nd level spell slots per long rest. Etc.

[djreynolds]

This isnt true at all.

One fight with a whole days XP is very different to 8 fights with the same XP, broken up by a few short rests.

In addition to the adventuring day xp, the game assumes 6-8 encounters and 2ish short rests. Powers like action surge, warlock spell slots, second wind and superiority dice are balanced against long rest resources with the assumption they refresh two-three times per day and having to stretch them over 6-8 encounters. Ditto hit points. One fight per day ignores hit dice recovery of hit points.

If you insist on 'one - two encounters per day' style of play, simply use the longer rest variant from the DMG. Otherwise you're short changing short rest dependent classes horribly.

Failing that, triple the amount of times a short rest recovery power can be used per long rest, and make them recovered by long rests.

BM Fighter 3's get 3 action surges, and 12 superiority dice and 3 second winds per long rest. Warlock 3's get 6 x 2nd level spell slots per long rest. Etc.

Excellent. Like your solution of just multiplying all their powers by three, to make up for the 2 short rests they are not taking.

I'm away from book, perhaps you could be so kind as to point out that page to everyone.

[MaxWilson]

XP awards are a different subject which I was not trying to raise. I'm just talking about the base "adventuring day" guidelines in the DMG. As long as the PCs fight X amount of adjusted XP of monsters, the guideline is happy. It doesn't care whether you build an adventure with forty goblins playing Tucker's kobolds in a nasty rat warren with poor visibility that favors the goblins, or forty goblins standing shoulder-to-shoulder in broad daylight on the tundra. Either way it's worth the same fraction of your daily XP budget. Conclusion: DMG guidelines are bad at predicting actual difficulty of an adventure. They ignore important factors. You're better off eyeballing based on experience.


This isnt true at all.

One fight with a whole days XP is very different to 8 fights with the same XP, broken up by a few short rests.

You misunderstand. One fight with forty goblins is the same as one fight with forty goblins (from a DMG/adventuring day budget standpoint, not in terms of actual difficulty). You're the one who introduced the idea of eight fights here, not me.

You're arguing with a straw man of your own creation, not with anything that I actually said. I'm really puzzled when you do stuff like that because, even though you quote my words, the words you write don't seem to address what I wrote. I don't see how you can get from there to here and not realize that you're changing the subject--but I assume you're not deliberately trying to maliciously distort my words, you probably just don't understand, right?

In this case we're clearly talking about the adventuring day guidelines, and how Adjusted XP, not rated difficulty, is the output from encounter construction to adventure construction according to DMG guidelines. To suggest breaking up the fight into 8 different fights is not responsive to that subject.

[Lines]

Its not your fault, its your DMs fault.

Hes not throwing the recomended 6-8 encounters per day at you, thus allowing you to nova every encounter with your highest level spell slots.

Hes not policing the adventuring day and sticking to the DMGs encounter pacing. Its his fault.

I legitimately can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. I've been DMing for years and only the occasional day has had 6-8 encounters in it - why on earth would an edition come with a guideline on encounter pacing? Recommendations are fine, but the game should be balanced regardless of whether there is one encounter or ten - a world is a world and a story is a story, the belief in either is shattered if a day would normally have one encounter but the game is balanced around me shoehorning an extra seven in.

The game should be balanced around the needs of the story, you shouldn't be expected to mangle your story to fit a ton of extra encounters in.

[Nu]

I legitimately can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. I've been DMing for years and only the occasional day has had 6-8 encounters in it - why on earth would an edition come with a guideline on encounter pacing? Recommendations are fine, but the game should be balanced regardless of whether there is one encounter or ten - a world is a world and a story is a story, the belief in either is shattered if a day would normally have one encounter but the game is balanced around me shoehorning an extra seven in.

The game should be balanced around the needs of the story, you shouldn't be expected to mangle your story to fit a ton of extra encounters in.

Pacing of encounters per "day" is important because challenge in this game is more about resource management over the course of the "adventuring day" than it is about life or death (success or failure) in a given combat (or noncombat) situation. It's simply not possible for a system like that to be balanced "whether there's one encounter or ten". Or maybe it is (I wouldn't have a suggestion off-hand but there are more clever minds than mine), but DnD isn't designed that way.

Now, as I understand it, the proper way to approach it in a "story" or campaign on a different schedule would be to change how rests work so you get closer to six to eight encounters per "long rest" with two "short rests" in there somewhere, thus getting closer to the system baseline. In that way, rather than adjusting the encounter total per adventuring day, you simply extend the adventuring day to accommodate that many encounters.

[obryn]

So what do you do for the 8th encounter of the day? As others have pointed out, a wizard can dominate any encounter he wants to dominate, but he can't dominate them all.
8 encounters per day is just wacky.

[mgshamster]

I legitimately can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. I've been DMing for years and only the occasional day has had 6-8 encounters in it - why on earth would an edition come with a guideline on encounter pacing? Recommendations are fine, but the game should be balanced regardless of whether there is one encounter or ten - a world is a world and a story is a story, the belief in either is shattered if a day would normally have one encounter but the game is balanced around me shoehorning an extra seven in.

The game should be balanced around the needs of the story, you shouldn't be expected to mangle your story to fit a ton of extra encounters in.

If you only have one encounter per day, your warlock and monk will feel much weaker and your wizard will feel much stronger compared to everyone else.

Monks and warlocks are designed to regain abilities at the short rest, whereas wizards, clerics, and others are designed around the long rest. So one encounter per day means that your long rest classes can nova really strong and never have to worry about their weak spots through the rest of the day; the monk and warlock (which are designed to nova often) lose their 1-2 resets per day and will feel weaker.

That's why they have the 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per day. The short rest classes get their abilities back while the long rest classes have to manage their resources better.

It's fine to have campaigns around one encounter per day, but if you do that, then you should either remove the short rest classes from your game or alter them to better fit your adventure philosophy.

[mgshamster]

8 encounters per day is just wacky.

Depends on the setting. A dungeon crawl fits the encounter design just fine. Remember, an encounter isn't just battle; it could be social, traps, investigative, terrain, etc...

Overland travel is difficult to have many encounters per day. Changing to the Gritty Realism rest periods for overland travel may be an option. Or do what I did and just ignore it and let them nova once in a while with no consequences.

The idea isn't that you have 6-8 encounters with resource expenditure every single day, but rather on adventures. Even doing it about half the time in the campaign is enough to "train" your players to always pay attention to their resources.

[MadBear]

Having played a High Elf Divination Wizard up to level 14, I can definitely say the game gets significantly harder when you have 8 encounters compared to 2-3.

Even at higher levels, the fact is that you could reliably use 2-3 spells per fight and feel confident in having enough spells for the end of the day (17+1-7 extra with arcane recovery). However, I will point out that useful spells like Shield really ate into my spells slots per day faster then you'd think (stupid intelligent enemies that know I'm the biggest potential threat).

[obryn]

If you only have one encounter per day, your warlock and monk will feel much weaker and your wizard will feel much stronger compared to everyone else.

Monks and warlocks are designed to regain abilities at the short rest, whereas wizards, clerics, and others are designed around the long rest. So one encounter per day means that your long rest classes can nova really strong and never have to worry about their weak spots through the rest of the day; the monk and warlock (which are designed to nova often) lose their 1-2 resets per day and will feel weaker.

That's why they have the 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per day. The short rest classes get their abilities back while the long rest classes have to manage their resources better.

It's fine to have campaigns around one encounter per day, but if you do that, then you should either remove the short rest classes from your game or alter them to better fit your adventure philosophy.
If a designer is dead-set on having a mix of daily and less-than-daily recharge rates for big whammies, they do, indeed, need to work towards an expected number of encounters per day for class balance.

The big problem here is that 8 encounters per day - like I said above - is simply wacky. It's an unviable standard for anything outside dungeon crawls.

So IMO, there's a few better approaches...

(1) The game could have been balanced around, say, 4 encounters per day. You still have issues when that's inappropriate, but it's a more reasonable standard.
(2) You give all classes recharge rates on the same schedule, to make it so that class balance is maintained even if the per-day guidelines aren't followed.
(3) You make the per-day stuff less powerful than the less-than-daily stuff, so that messing with the number of encounters doesn't change it up much.
(4) You nuke the conceit of 'per-day' abilities and instead switch to 'per X encounters.' This removes the 15-minute-workday entirely and frees up the DM to pace the adventure however they see fit. (While you're at it, change short rest abilities to per 2 or per 3 encounters.)

They made a decision on 8 encounters per day and stuck with it, which is good, but it's still a crazy decision.

[Nu]

The big problem here is that 8 encounters per day - like I said above - is simply wacky. It's an unviable standard for anything outside dungeon crawls.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dungeons and Dragons has been designed with the "dungeon crawl" in mind as its first and foremost concern since the very beginning. I mean, it's in the name of the game. It's to be expected when the scenario is not a dungeon crawl, some adjustments might need to be made.


(2) You give all classes recharge rates on the same schedule, to make it so that class balance is maintained even if the per-day guidelines aren't followed.
(3) You make the per-day stuff less powerful than the less-than-daily stuff, so that messing with the number of encounters doesn't change it up much.

That was DnD 4th Edition.

[MadBear]

If a designer is dead-set on having a mix of daily and less-than-daily recharge rates for big whammies, they do, indeed, need to work towards an expected number of encounters per day for class balance.

The big problem here is that 8 encounters per day - like I said above - is simply wacky. It's an unviable standard for anything outside dungeon crawls.



First, your suggestions are entirely reasonable.

With that out of the way, they do kinda have the dungeon crawls thing in their title "Dungeons & Dragons"


edit: Ninja's. Always Ninjas.

[Lines]

First, your suggestions are entirely reasonable.

With that out of the way, they do kinda have the dungeon crawls thing in their title "Dungeons & Dragons"


But why does that mean the game needs to be balanced around it? Dungeon crawls can exist in your game if you want, but they won't be the majority of days in the majority of games. Good design means the mechanics help you tell your story, bad design is you have to twist your story to fit in with the mechanics.


Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dungeons and Dragons has been designed with the "dungeon crawl" in mind as its first and foremost concern since the very beginning. I mean, it's in the name of the game. It's to be expected when the scenario is not a dungeon crawl, some adjustments might need to be made.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dungeons and Dragons has been designed with the "dragon" in mind as its first and foremost concern since the very beginning. I mean, it's in the name of the game. It's to be expected when the enemy is not a dragon, some adjustments might need to be made.

No, wait. That's silly, and the game should be balanced around a variety of enemies and situations.


That was DnD 4th Edition.

And DnD 3.5 was a d20 system with spell levels one through nine, with martial classes having to mostly just auto attack - what's your point?

[obryn]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dungeons and Dragons has been designed with the "dungeon crawl" in mind as its first and foremost concern since the very beginning. I mean, it's in the name of the game. It's to be expected when the scenario is not a dungeon crawl, some adjustments might need to be made.

With that out of the way, they do kinda have the dungeon crawls thing in their title "Dungeons & Dragons"
Yes, and if that's all the designers want the game to be, it's fine and dandy. This, however, is not how the game is generally played, nor is it represented even in the game's own adventures.


That was DnD 4th Edition.
Yes, it was. And they are good ways to handle the issue. They are not the only ways, but they are good ones.


e: Another issue with 8 encounters per day, IMO, is the balancing point. If you want to have an X/day balance, then you are probably expecting some days to have more than that and some days to have less than that, to give all classes a chance to shine on certain days. We know that if you have less than 8 per day, casters will rule. Most adventuring days will have less than 8 encounters per day. How many days will there be with more than 8 encounters?

[MadBear]

don't get me wrong. As I stated in the first line, I agree with most/all of your suggestions. I just found it funny to say that dungeons crawls aren't the norm in a game with the word dungeon in the title. :smallbiggrin:

[Doug Lampert]

Another issue with 8 encounters per day, IMO, is the balancing point. If you want to have an X/day balance, then you are probably expecting some days to have more than that and some days to have less than that, to give all classes a chance to shine on certain days. We know that if you have less than 8 per day, casters will rule. Most adventuring days will have less than 8 encounters per day. How many days will there be with more than 8 encounters?
It's easy enough to do, I haven't tried it in 5th, but based on my experience in other systems the problem with lots and lots of encounters between recovery times is that it doesn't make the fighter and other "reliable" classes with at-will powers seem awesome, it just makes the foes feel wussy.

Nor does it make the fighter needed, the cleric is the key character to that sort of endurance run. Because minor damage (cantrips, cleric weapon attacks, bard weapon attacks, ext...) are enough to win each encounter, the problem is cumulative HP losses, and at most levels of power those are BEST dealt with by various daily classes.

You need someone who could solo the entire set (because the foes simply can't meaningfully hurt him), or you've come up with a quest to make the healers into the vital and important characters. It still doesn't really help the at-will and short rest groups.

[Nu]

And DnD 3.5 was a d20 system with spell levels one through nine, with martial classes having to mostly just auto attack - what's your point?

My "point", as it were, was that there was a system built with the quoted design goals in mind, one called Dungeons and Dragons no less. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy DnD 4E; I DM'd a 4E game for years.

You seem a little hostile in this response. Any particular reason why?


But why does that mean the game needs to be balanced around it? Dungeon crawls can exist in your game if you want, but they won't be the majority of days in the majority of games. Good design means the mechanics help you tell your story, bad design is you have to twist your story to fit in with the mechanics.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dungeons and Dragons has been designed with the "dragon" in mind as its first and foremost concern since the very beginning. I mean, it's in the name of the game. It's to be expected when the enemy is not a dragon, some adjustments might need to be made.

No, wait. That's silly, and the game should be balanced around a variety of enemies and situations.

If you're saying the design is bad or unbalanced, that's fine. And I think most of us will agree with you that the system (with default rules for resting and pacing) breaks down outside of the standard dungeon crawl paradigm. Is that bad? I guess it depends on what you expect out of a system in the first place. I brought up DnD 4th edition in reply to obyrn because it sounded like the system being sought wasn't really how DnD 5th edition was designed. At the end of the day it's either adjust the system to fit your needs--suggestions as to how have been presented already--or find another system that better accommodates the needs of the players and the DM.

Some people are probably okay with game balance not necessarily being on-point at all times. WotC clearly is okay with that, as their adventures typically include adventuring days that don't meet the 6-8 encounter standard--but they also seem to (almost? I can't say I've ready every single one, but of the ones I've read) always include a dungeon crawl or similar scenario. Some people might be less okay with that, or run crawls more rarely or not at all, and 5E as written might not meet their expectations.

And hey, as a final alternative, there are other games out there that have much more narrative-focused rule sets if your primary goal is to "tell a story". DnD can tell a specific kind of story, but the further you get away from that story the more it strains. Hard to tell where the breaking point is for each individual, but I think it's safe to say where the system is most comfortable: managing the dungeon crawl.

[obryn]

don't get me wrong. As I stated in the first line, I agree with most/all of your suggestions. I just found it funny to say that dungeons crawls aren't the norm in a game with the word dungeon in the title. :smallbiggrin:
Oh, I know, and a D&D game that is bad at dungeons or bad at dragons would be a terrible D&D game. Those need to be a (frankly, the) primary focus of the design process.

It's just that the rules should work outside of there, too. If you make rules that only work in a dungeon, well, that's not exactly ideal, either.

e:

My "point", as it were, was that there was a system built with the quoted design goals in mind, one called Dungeons and Dragons no less. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy DnD 4E; I DM'd a 4E game for years.

You seem a little hostile in this response. Any particular reason why?
That wasn't my quote. :smallwink:

[Lines]

My "point", as it were, was that there was a system built with the quoted design goals in mind, one called Dungeons and Dragons no less. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy DnD 4E; I DM'd a 4E game for years.

You seem a little hostile in this response. Any particular reason why?
Not hostile, just not sure what those mechanics existing in 4th had anything to do with their lack in 5e - there are several aspects of many editions 5e should have and does not, not sure what's so special about 4e in this context other than them ditching an even larger amount of good ideas (choices for martial characters and martial Leaders probably the highest on that list) from 4e than any other edition.


If you're saying the design is bad or unbalanced, that's fine. And I think most of us will agree with you that the system (with default rules for resting and pacing) breaks down outside of the standard dungeon crawl paradigm. Is that bad? I guess it depends on what you expect out of a system in the first place. I brought up DnD 4th edition in reply to obyrn because it sounded like the system being sought wasn't really how DnD 5th edition was designed. At the end of the day it's either adjust the system to fit your needs--suggestions as to how have been presented already--or find another system that better accommodates the needs of the players and the DM.
This is 5e. It's the generalist edition, the one blending ideas from a whole bunch of sources into a bland soup the whole family can add their own spices to. It's still missing several aspects, but the base chassis is good so those can be added later - for now it has warlocks if you want a simple caster, wizards if you want a complex one, barbarians if you want a simple martial, (class not found because WotC forgot what ToB and 4e taught us about martial design) if you want a complex one - it's designed to not be as simulationist as 3.5, as mechanically interesting as 4e, as whatever 2e is good at as 2e in exchange for being simple and for being good but not great at all those aspects.

And in a jack-of-all-trades edition, having the expectation being one very specific type of adventuring day that won't fit in a lot of stories is not particularly acceptable.

[MaxWilson]

Having played a High Elf Divination Wizard up to level 14, I can definitely say the game gets significantly harder when you have 8 encounters compared to 2-3.

Even at higher levels, the fact is that you could reliably use 2-3 spells per fight and feel confident in having enough spells for the end of the day (17+1-7 extra with arcane recovery). However, I will point out that useful spells like Shield really ate into my spells slots per day faster then you'd think (stupid intelligent enemies that know I'm the biggest potential threat).

Yay for Disguise Self! Disguise yourself to look like an armored fighter with a greatsword, or a medium-sized Fire Elemental, or anything at all instead of a wizard. And it doesn't even take concentration. :)

[mgshamster]

The big problem here is that 8 encounters per day - like I said above - is simply wacky. It's an unviable standard for anything outside dungeon crawls.

I've made the design work outside of dungeon crawls. It's really applicable to city adventures, as well. Here's an example: 2-3 social encounters, 1-2 investigation scenes, a fight or two, and a chase scene and we're set. My point earlier was that encounter =/= combat. Encounter = a scene where resource expenditure is likely.

About the only place I haven't seen it work is during travel. But that really hasn't effected me yet because my players haven't played a monk or a warlock, so the short rests haven't been as crucial.

Our next campaign, I'm planning on playing a monk (we're switching GMs), so it'll be more crucial. And in a PBP game I'm in, I'm playing a warlock. We'll see how it works out.


(1) The game could have been balanced around, say, 4 encounters per day. You still have issues when that's inappropriate, but it's a more reasonable standard.

In my opinion, the number of encounters is less important than the number of short rests between encounters. Four encounters could work really well if you're still giving 1-2 short rests between them. If not, then change or eliminate the monk and warlock, and you'll still be fine.


(2) You give all classes recharge rates on the same schedule, to make it so that class balance is maintained even if the per-day guidelines aren't followed.
(3) You make the per-day stuff less powerful than the less-than-daily stuff, so that messing with the number of encounters doesn't change it up much.
(4) You nuke the conceit of 'per-day' abilities and instead switch to 'per X encounters.' This removes the 15-minute-workday entirely and frees up the DM to pace the adventure however they see fit. (While you're at it, change short rest abilities to per 2 or per 3 encounters.)

Meh. I wasn't a fan of that in 4e - every class had nearly the exact same template, it was just the wording that was different. Everything was based around the encounter (which was practically defined as combat).

I like the various abilities between classes that still come out decently balanced in the long run. And I like how they are reset on actual resting rather than the ending of the adrenaline pump.

I like your insight, but I also like how 5e is designed. If it doesn't work for you, change it up! :)

[obryn]

I've made the design work outside of dungeon crawls. It's really applicable to city adventures, as well. Here's an example: 2-3 social encounters, 1-2 investigation scenes, a fight or two, and a chase scene and we're set. My point earlier was that encounter =/= combat. Encounter = a scene where resource expenditure is likely.
What kinds of resources are characters spending during social encounters? Seems to me those should mostly be handled by skill usage, and that letting the casters dominate those scenes through spells would be undesirable.

[Edgerunner]

I have the opposite problem.

My party hates me.... and I love it because they think I'm useless.
Some Buffs, Debuffs and lots of Battlefield Control is what I do. I don't even have an attack spell above 2nd lvl.

They just don't realize that I'm so good at what I do that it looks Easy. They can have all the glory..... I know who's doing all the work in my group LOL.

I have to link my success to "Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit?pref=2&pli=1

[Deox]

I have the opposite problem.

My party hates me.... and I love it because they think I'm useless.
Some Buffs, Debuffs and lots of Battlefield Control is what I do. I don't even have an attack spell above 2nd lvl.

They just don't realize that I'm so good at what I do that it looks Easy. They can have all the glory..... I know who's doing all the work in my group LOL.

Edgerunner - you're doing it right.

[Vogonjeltz]

8 encounters per day is just wacky.

So wacky that the Basic Set adventure, Lost Mines of Phandelver features 8+ encounters on the very first day. Just superwackyfragilisticexpealidocious if I say so myself. Which I think I just did.

[mgshamster]

What kinds of resources are characters spending during social encounters? Seems to me those should mostly be handled by skill usage, and that letting the casters dominate those scenes through spells would be undesirable.

Bardic inspiration (my group always has a bard), spells (the specific spells depend on the party), and more if they fail the social encounter.

If you choose not to utilize your resources for important social encounters (for what ever reason, including some sense of fairness to those who don't utilize magic), then you're at greater risk of failing, which could lead to expenditure of even more resources. If you want to risk that, its on you.

[RulesJD]

Just want to point out that you aren't even using your most optimized spells for OP domination.

1. Hypnotic Pattern. 3rd level spell and straight up ends encounters.
2. Wall of Force. 5th level spell that just...wins everything. Short of an enemy having disintegrate, you're good to go. 20ft diameter so can even trap/protect big amounts. Abuse the floating hemisphere for more fun.
3. Transmute Rock. 5th Level. Hilariously broken control spell.
4. Animate Objects. 5th level spell that lets you go congrats all your melee, they're now mostly useless. Ridiculous damage, can provide the help function, take Opp Attacks, fly, etc.

[obryn]

So wacky that the Basic Set adventure, Lost Mines of Phandelver features 8+ encounters on the very first day. Just superwackyfragilisticexpealidocious if I say so myself. Which I think I just did.
No, it remains wacky as a standard expectation. I think I said a few posts ago it can obviously be done, but as a general expectation ... yeah, wacky. It's a straitjacket around adventure design.


Bardic inspiration (my group always has a bard), spells (the specific spells depend on the party), and more if they fail the social encounter.

If you choose not to utilize your resources for important social encounters (for what ever reason, including some sense of fairness to those who don't utilize magic), then you're at greater risk of failing, which could lead to expenditure of even more resources. If you want to risk that, its on you.
So yeah, spells to let magic folks dominate the social encounters. Yaaaaay.... :smallsmile:

But no, I actually still don't buy that social encounters demand anywhere near the resource expenditure that combat encounters do. :smallsmile:

[lperkins2]

On the subject of balancing short-rest vs long rest classes: In 3.5, we made resources return linearly with rest, for 5e, make the recovered-on-short-rest skills x3/day and all resources return linearly with time spent resting.

On the other hand, I wouldn't generally bother. If the party is regularly novaing in their first encounter, it's because they think it will be their only encounter before resting. Unless you've promised 'only one encounter between rests', they shouldn't be counting on that. Usually, all it takes to make the wizard only spend limited spells in emergencies is to drop a deadly encounter on them 10 minutes after they nova. Obviously, if you want to avoid a TPK, make sure you have a way for them to escape, ideally while losing out on the treasure or whatever. For bonus points, make it an encounter the wizard could have trivialized if he'd only saved his insert-top-spellslot-spell-here.

The only times my party will nova is in emergencies, when they're about to be back at home base, or when they're trying to prevent fights via shock-and-awe (combined with acting like tossing out empowered fireballs doesn't even tire them and they could do it all day).

Once the party is fairly high level, their enemies may well be able to tell (divination) when they've over-extended and dispatch a small group of wind-walking thugs to attack the party before they recover. (Not to mention the chance for dangerous random encounters).

Note that none of this requires more than 2 combat encounters per day to balance.

[Sigreid]

I think people are getting too hung up on the 6-8 encounters per day. My opinion is the balance works just fine so long as the party is never certain how many encounters there are going to be on any given day. If the party gets into the mindset that it's better to have resources left over at the end of the day than to need resources you've already spent, that maintains balance too.

[pwykersotz]

Honestly, I almost never use 6-8 encounters per day. I just mix things up enough to never let the party expect what's coming next. They seldom nova. But I also have an established group that I've gamed with for 7 years now, which might affect things.

[coredump]

Depends on the setting. A dungeon crawl fits the encounter design just fine. Remember, an encounter isn't just battle; it could be social, traps, investigative, terrain, etc...
.

When the DMG talks about 6-8 encounters a day, they are explicitly talking about *combat* encounters.

[CantigThimble]

I think people are getting too hung up on the 6-8 encounters per day. My opinion is the balance works just fine so long as the party is never certain how many encounters there are going to be on any given day. If the party gets into the mindset that it's better to have resources left over at the end of the day than to need resources you've already spent, that maintains balance too.

In our campaign there's a very important person we need to get information to and from but the only way we can contact him is sending. So I (the cleric) am constantly fighting to keep as many 3+ level spell slots as possible which means I have pretty much stopped using Spirit Guardians completely. I don't think it was an intended plan of the DM had but it has definitely kept me from overshadowing the rest of the party on short adventuring days.

[coredump]

(1) The game could have been balanced around, say, 4 encounters per day. You still have issues when that's inappropriate, but it's a more reasonable standard.
(2) You give all classes recharge rates on the same schedule, to make it so that class balance is maintained even if the per-day guidelines aren't followed.
(3) You make the per-day stuff less powerful than the less-than-daily stuff, so that messing with the number of encounters doesn't change it up much.
(4) You nuke the conceit of 'per-day' abilities and instead switch to 'per X encounters.' This removes the 15-minute-workday entirely and frees up the DM to pace the adventure however they see fit. (While you're at it, change short rest abilities to per 2 or per 3 encounters.)
.

1) It already is...sort of. It is currently built about 6-8 "Medium and Hard" encounters. But you could get the same result with 4 if you toss if you go only deadly and hard. (Or some similarly challenging combination)
2) Would make the classes much more boring..... it changes a lot of the flavor of the classes. And it also limits the power level of abilities you can give out.
3) Not sure what you are saying.... but it sound backwards. If you can only do it once a day, its weak, but if you can do it once per round, its strong...??
4) At least needing to rest makes some sense in the fiction. The 'per X encounters' seems way too 'meta'. Plus it has the same problem from the other direction. With that system, you *have* to throw in plenty of easy/medium encounters to make sure their abilities can recharge.

[mgshamster]

When the DMG talks about 6-8 encounters a day, they are explicitly talking about *combat* encounters.

Huh. I had it wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[obryn]

2) Would make the classes much more boring..... it changes a lot of the flavor of the classes. And it also limits the power level of abilities you can give out.
It does change the class flavor, certainly. But it doesn't have to limit the power level of abilities - it just democratizes them.


3) Not sure what you are saying.... but it sound backwards. If you can only do it once a day, its weak, but if you can do it once per round, its strong...??
Yes.

If you go from 100% of your top capacity down to a minimum of, say, 75% of your top capacity, the daily/non-daily balancing becomes a lot easier. It does sound backwards, but it would do the job.


4) At least needing to rest makes some sense in the fiction. The 'per X encounters' seems way too 'meta'. Plus it has the same problem from the other direction. With that system, you *have* to throw in plenty of easy/medium encounters to make sure their abilities can recharge.
It's very meta, and intentionally so. That's the point, actually. :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

1) It already is...sort of. It is currently built about 6-8 "Medium and Hard" encounters. But you could get the same result with 4 if you toss if you go only deadly and hard. (Or some similarly challenging combination)

Well, sort of. If you do the math relative to the adventuring day, you see that you can fit 6-8 Easy/Medium encounters into the adventuring day, or 5-6 Medium/Hard encounters. I haven't done the math for Hard/Deadly but presumably it's something like 2-3 of them.

[Lines]

In our campaign there's a very important person we need to get information to and from but the only way we can contact him is sending. So I (the cleric) am constantly fighting to keep as many 3+ level spell slots as possible which means I have pretty much stopped using Spirit Guardians completely. I don't think it was an intended plan of the DM had but it has definitely kept me from overshadowing the rest of the party on short adventuring days.

You already are overshadowing the party, you're doing so by being way more useful than they are. You contribute well in combat but you're the only one able to get the important information happening - imagine the reverse, if everyone including you could impart that vital information but you were the only one able to do anything in combat. In your situation or the reverse, you're still more useful than they are.


:vaarsuvius: As if it is OUR fault that they chose a class not capable of doing everything.

[CantigThimble]

You already are overshadowing the party, you're doing so by being way more useful than they are. You contribute well in combat but you're the only one able to get the important information happening - imagine the reverse, if everyone including you could impart that vital information but you were the only one able to do anything in combat. In your situation or the reverse, you're still more useful than they are.


:vaarsuvius: As if it is OUR fault that they chose a class not capable of doing everything.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Not the way anyone in my party looks at it though so it's not really an issue.

[djreynolds]

So to update everyone.

And how the tables were turned on me, beholders. Really, one and then another. 1 party member dead, disintegrated into kitty litter. Anti-magic what. Our DM says its 150 degree radius for 100ft.

Needless to say, I had to eat my own foot as the martials held it down. I came up with the plan. We had to move and get casters on the flanks. The tanks performed. I ended up throwing a hand axe, and got a 2 on my roll. We do critical (and comical) failures and I damaged the rogue for 7.

And the rogue, the thief, do not count out the thief archetype. The beholder, or DM really, got sick of people jumping up and down and stabbing him, levitated up even higher. Too high for our vertical jumps and attacks. Our thief climbed the wall at normal speed and jumped off and scored an awesome hit. That's gaming. Out of nowhere. Did I say they could only carry my books?

And Anti-magic sucks, our DM said only channel divinity would work, so our paladin had to move around to use his smite. Trust me, we argued it, but he said it was a spell slot being used and saw it as magical.

So what did I do, I moved my 25 feet and took the dodge action mostly. Missed with hand axe, badly, hitting the thief perched atop the beholder who had previously disintegrated the necromancer, and since he loved death so much his loss actually did sort of sit well with us.

But in time the martials set it up for me to, 25ft per turn, to creep in and cast my own disintegrate.

So now I love my party.

[titotulky]

a level 13th wizard :biggrin: such god lol

[MaxWilson]

*snip*
But in time the martials set it up for me to, 25ft per turn, to creep in and cast my own disintegrate.

So now I love my party.

Good story. Thanks for the update. :)