Resources, Balance and the Adventure Day

[Daphne]

It's often asked if the DM is sticking to the Adventure Day, of six to eight encounters, when he has problems with the balance of this game. Some posters here even say that this is a game about resource management.

However, Crawford recently tweeted that "there is no rule or even suggestion that an adventuring day should include 6+ encounters. There is, however, text where we tell DMs that groups will start getting tuckered out after that many encounters." (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/936041806113816576), contradicting what is commonly believed here. He also mentioned that they assume player characters are at full health for every encounter (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/935995896637964290), reducing the importance of the most common resource: HP.

All this talk started after the infamous Healing Spirit spell was released, some think this spell is alright while others think it's broken, we already had a thread about it, so let's not focus on it.

In my opinion, a part of the reason why people disagree is what they expect from the game: some want a more heroic while others prefer a more grounded game. But what do you guys think? Do you think this game is balanced? How do you think Xanathar's affected the game? Do you like the resource management aspect of the game? Does you or your DM use any of the variant rest system from the DMG?

Is Crawford just trying to justify his mistakes? :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Personally, I use the DMG system as it is (IMO) primarily intended. To gauge the difficulty of an upcoming encounter for a particular party, and to know when the party is overextending itself.

I kinda have to. I don't know who is sitting down at the table, what characters they are bringing (other than Tier 1 or Tier 2), etc when designing my adventuring locations. Nor do I want to customize to a specific party. There is no assumption they can beat an adventuring location or specific encounter in a 'fair fight'.

As to 'full HP', that's almost never the case IMX. Players regularly overextend themselves. Resource depletion across the adventuring day is definitely a thing, and it's designed right into the game everywhere. A new spell that is wildly out of sync with current power levels of other spells in regards to that is a problem. So I think JC telling us the truth about design intent of the adventuring day, but also yeah, I think he's justifying a mistake.

[LeonBH]

Crawford? Trying to justify his mistakes????

But seriously, I'm glad to see they didn't design the game with 6-8 encounters in mind per adventuring day. It doesn't often happen.

Is the game balanced? Well, if by "balanced" you mean "not broken", then I think the core books are balanced.

I dislike things that Xanathar's introduced (like Elven Accuracy and Hexblade) but I like some others (like the Spell ID rules, the new invocations, and downtime activities).

The resource management aspect is pesky but it's a core part of the game. I love using Spell Points for casters because it frees up the burden of resource management, but having used the rule myself, I think it's overpowered.

I use Gritty Realism for my game. It works out great because every resource spent hurts that much more. We don't enter combat too often because of it, but the game works well even without it.

[MrStabby]

I find the game is pretty balanced and fun if there are 6 to 8 encounters per day - intended or otherwise.

If there are fewer encounters then casters can start to blow bigger spells on every encounter. For example at level 7, how can a fighter compete with a caster that can open every encounter with a fireball? Damage is no longer the fighter's strong point.

In my games I allow my players two "meal breaks" per day - counting as short rests that they can take whenever they want. This helps enable the classes to chose how to manage their own resources.

I do like the resource management aspect of the game, however I would like it if the rare abilities were a little less powerful. It makes it harder to plan when you have a risk that by encounter X the party won't have the high level abilities you anticipate to survive. Less swingy would help balance resource consumption.

[mephnick]

If the game isn't based around resource attrition it isn't D&D. That's the main point of the system and it always has been. There are plenty of other fantasy systems you can play if you don't like that idea. And guess what? 5e is still very dependant on resource attrition for balance. Again, one of the 5e designers reveals he doesn't understand the system. The people writing the adventures sure as hell don't, and Mearls doesn't know what 'mechanics' means, but I expected more from Crawford.

[rbstr]

I think JC's getting a bit misinterpreted here: The encounter balance guidelines, so # of enemies and CR ect. are designed with full HP as a baseline. What's deadly or hard or medium by the scale assume full HP. That's regardless of the party's rests or number of encounters.


But seriously, I'm glad to see they didn't design the game with 6-8 encounters in mind per adventuring day.

They clearly did balance around ~2 short rest per day and some encounters between each, though. Long rest classes simply blow the short rest classes out of the water otherwise. And, similarly, gritty realism can make short rest classes way stronger if the ratio isn't upheld well.

[JackPhoenix]

The 6-8 figure is what the actual suggestion in DMG, XP per day, leads to.

Let's say we've got 4 level 10 characters. Their daily xp budget is 9000 xp per PC, or 36k xp total. Now, Medium Encounter for level 10 character is about 1200 xp, Hard encounter about 1900 xp. That means 4800 and 7600 xp for the whole group.

36 000 / 4800 = 7.5
36 000 / 7600 = 4.7 (and change).

Now, you don't run only Medium and Hard encounters, you also add some Easy, and occassional Deadly fight. Overall, the average number of encounters per adventuring day fits somewhere between 6-8, depending on the difficulty of encounters. It may be more if the encounters are significantly easier, or less if they are more dangerous.

So yes, Crawford never said the game is balanced around 6-8 encounters, however, 6-8 is what their suggestion and some math leads to.

[Tanarii]

I think JC's getting a bit misinterpreted here: The encounter balance guidelines, so # of enemies and CR ect. are designed with full HP as a baseline. What's deadly or hard or medium by the scale assume full HP. That's regardless of the party's rests or number of encounters.
Yeah, starting full or close to full Hps is it's own assumption. But if the previous balance point was a party was expected to be able to go up to an adventuring day that way based on existin resources, adding more powerful out combat healing extends the effective maximum length of the possible adventuring day.

Enough of it makes their DMG stimates less useful.

[Pex]

I haven't been counting the number of encounters per day my groups have, but in quick thinking about it I'm recalling game days are either two combats or three. The last combat is the hardest where we need the long rest afterwards. We take one short rest a game day sometimes two. One DM had issues with the rest mechanic in the beginning of our campaign being quite reluctant to let us rest, but he was new to 5E. He got the hang of it. To be cynical about it, (what else is new :smallyuk: ) the DMs I play with do not resent PCs having their stuff/some of their stuff and full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. The warrior players do not resent and in fact cheer when the spellcasters use their big guns, and the spellcasters don't resent and are quite happy pew pewing with Cantrips when that's all they got left or need. People here who say a game day should be 6-8 encounters do not speak for me. Players want to rest, of course, but no one's resenting who needs short rests more and who needs long rests more.

For those DMs/players/groups who do have issues with balancing rests, you'll have to figure out what works for you. I don't think there is a universal sweet spot on rate of rests. 5E's fault is having some classes dependent on short rests while others are dependent on long rests. The conflicting needs causes problems. At risk of the sameness I didn't like about 4E, if all classes got important things back on short rests and refreshed everything on long rests that would help lessen the friction. At least as it is now long rest dependent classes do want short rests anyway if only for the HD spending healing.

I will say the DM should work with the players and not against them with regards to resting. Of course the players should not be resting after every single combat, but neither should the DM constantly forbid them by placing a time factor for every single adventure such that if the party rests the bad guy wins or interrupt them with random encounter or BBEG minion attacks. Neither extreme is good. There is a middle ground. My groups have found it. Here's to hoping yours do as well.

[Malifice]

It's often asked if the DM is sticking to the Adventure Day, of six to eight encounters, when he has problems with the balance of this game. Some posters here even say that this is a game about resource management.

The game is about resouce management.

Hit points, spell slots, hit dice, rages, ki points, sorcery points, action surges, sup dice, second wind, smites, lay on hands, wild shapes, charges, xp, gp etc etc etc

All resources that need to be managed. Replenished via rests.


However, Crawford recently tweeted that "there is no rule or even suggestion that an adventuring day should include 6+ encounters. There is, however, text where we tell DMs that groups will start getting tuckered out after that many encounters." (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/936041806113816576), contradicting what is commonly believed here. He also mentioned that they assume player characters are at full health for every encounter (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/935995896637964290), reducing the importance of the most common resource: HP.

Youre wrong. Read on.

Crawford states that encounters are designed to be hit at full strength, and that a party can handle about 6+ such encounters before running out of juice.

He differentuates this from class and game balance later on in the same chain of tweets (which assume several encounters, and 2-3 short rests per long rest).


In my opinion, a part of the reason why people disagree is what they expect from the game: some want a more heroic while others prefer a more grounded game. But what do you guys think? Do you think this game is balanced? How do you think Xanathar's affected the game? Do you like the resource management aspect of the game? Does you or your DM use any of the variant rest system from the DMG?

The game is balanced, but it relies on strict policing of the adventuring day and resting/ resource replenishment to be so.

No short rest based class (warlocks, monks fighters) are going to be able to compete with a long rest based class (wizard, paladin) in a campaign featuring 1 encounter per long rest (frequent 5MWD). Long rest resources are more potent than short rest resources, and being able to freely dump smites/ rages/ spell slots round after round with impunity is not the same as being able to dump action surges/ sup dice round after round with impunity.
---------------------------------
Compare a Paladin 10 to a BM Fighter 10.

The Paladin has 4/3/2 slots - enough for 25d8 (120 or so) extra damage from smites. He has 1 x channel divinity and heals 50 HP with LoH.

The BM Fighter (no short rests) has 5d10 (28 or so) extra damage from sup dice, 1 x action surge and heals 15.5 HP from Second wind.

Clear advantage Paladin.

Now compare again with 2.5 short rests:

The Paladin has 4/3/2 slots - enough for 25d8 (120 or so) extra damage from smites. He has 3.5 x channel divinities and heals 50 HP with LoH.

The BM Fighter now has 17.5d10 (85 or so) extra damage from sup dice, 3.5 x action surges and heals 54 HP from Second wind.

They're roughly on par. You can make the same comparisons with the Warlock (short rest based caster) and the Wizard (long rest based caster). Once you hit a frequency of around 2-3 short rests per long rest, they even out. Single encounter days favor the Wizard. Multiple encounter/ muliple short rest days favor the Warlock.
-----------------------------------------------

While encounters might be designed to be hit at full HP, the classes are not equally balanced at the same point. Some are long rest based, and some short rest. The Rogue is rest neutral. The classes however are balanced presuming 2-3 short rests per long rest.

Its both a burden to police as DM, and also a boon (you can tweak class balance by simply including more short rests, or less).

[Unoriginal]

I don't want to make assumptions, so sorry if it sounds like I do, but is this about the "coffeelock" thing?

[krugaan]

I don't want to make assumptions, so sorry if it sounds like I do, but is this about the "coffeelock" thing?

No, I think it's literally about policing the adventuring day and resource management.

[JellyPooga]

The Rogue is rest neutral.

Oh Rogue, you fit in with everyone's work-day. What a guy! :smallbiggrin: (I think I might call my next Rogue character "Ace")

[Talamare]

We also have to remember that encounters involve anything that one might spend resources on

So it doesn't necessarily has to be a fight

Some traps, a large hole blocking the way, sneaking past something, convincing someone

They ~might~ all be encounters

[Anonymouswizard]

With regards to balance, encounters are only relevant in how they affect the loss and gain of resources, and therefore how they impact the ability to rest.

Therefore, a day with three encounters where the short rest classes use all their abilities is roughly equivalent to eight encounters where the short rest classes are out after every third one.

Now due to the way that D&D is set up it can be hard to lose resources outside of combat encounters, especially for people who aren't casters. Fighters and Barbarians essentially do not have any resources they can actively use outside of a fight. This means that when discussing attrition fights will dominate (especially because at most tables I've played at noncombat encounters may easily be decided by a single spell, possibly relatively low level).

Now the 'there is no rule' tweet is essentially saying that it's intended as a guideline. There's also the impression that it's supposed to be 'characters will be low on resources after', as a reminder to GMs that PCs don't have infinite hp/spell slots/SR resources.

The second tweet is more interesting, because it basically tells us that the designers assume that one resource (hp) only matters for one encounter, which has rarely been my gaming experience in any system. I'm used to PCs coming out of encounters and thinking 'alright, we can take another fight or two but then we have to run and heal'. There are even systems that assume characters might have as little as half hp going into a fight (although they're rare, I only own one that explicitly says characters so low will consider themselves fine).

It also tells us something that directly contradicts his tweet, that they assume that there will be a decent amount of non-hit die resources spent on healing, either potions or spell slots. The former fits in with characters gaining a lot of useless money via adventures, and the second means that an extra powerful healing spell literally unbalances the game, because now there's less resources being spent overall, including some that would normally be spent on healing. Even if we assume that the average character needs one spell slot every combat to get back to 90%+, except when they take a short rest, then in a six encounter two short rest day that's an extra nine spell slots for the healer!

the other option is that it's actually a bug fix, a way to make sure characters are always ready for an encounter when they weren't before.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't want to make assumptions, so sorry if it sounds like I do, but is this about the "coffeelock" thing? No, it's about the Healing Spirit spell. I read the tweets and didn't get a good feeling, but I think Malifice has summarized the issue pretty well.

[Grod_The_Giant]

We also have to remember that encounters involve anything that one might spend resources on

So it doesn't necessarily has to be a fight

Some traps, a large hole blocking the way, sneaking past something, convincing someone

They ~might~ all be encounters
It doesn't HAVE to be a fight, but with the way D&D is set up it usually will be. Most noncombat stuff is solved with roleplay and with skill checks-- two things with unlimited uses. Rituals sometimes, but those are also unlimited. You might see a single utility spell used, but it's hard to think of any single challenge (heck, even a day full of challenges) with anywhere near the attrition rate of combat. And that's not even touching the many classes who have no noncombat resources TO spend.

Crawford's tweets seem kind of weasely to me. "Oh no, you're not EXPECTED to have 6-8 encounters per day, that's just how many you need to make sure everyone uses up their resources at the right rate."

[Xetheral]

Crawford's tweets seem kind of weasely to me. "Oh no, you're not EXPECTED to have 6-8 encounters per day, that's just how many you need to make sure everyone uses up their resources at the right rate."

I think the tweets makes perfect sense if one drops the idea that there is a "right rate" at which the party should be spending resources.

Also, for reference, at my table players seem to spend more levelled spell slots outside of combat (or to avoid conbat) than they do inside of combat.