An encounter per day keeps the doctor away

[thomaszwanzinge]

Dear Fellow DMs,

I am struggling a bit with challanging my players in combat recently. They are 6th level, and lately I threw a self-designed legendary monster at them (for my personal pleasure) that I created with the DMG rules. Had some AoE, 200 Hitpoints, 18 AC, legendary resistance, some attacks for legendary attacks etc. In total about a CR 10 Monster. Naturally they kicked its ass without a sweat (no healing, no one-time use magic items). We even do not play with feats or multiclassing, and I think I am not too liberate with magic items either.

I have read enough about the topic to know some of the common practices to solve this: have lots of minions for those boss monsters, have waves of monsters, adjust hitpoints etc. on the fly and so on.

My biggest problem, however, is that we usually have just one encounter per day. Unless we really run a dungeon, which we do not do that often, it happens that we run 2-3 encounters between levelling up ( I like leveling them, and they like levelling). It is usual that my group is completely fresh in an encounter. I feel this is not an approach I should change too much since we are not very time efficient in our battles. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc. AND they like the other aspects of the game enough that this is balance is right for them.

I would like to know:
- Who else plays that style (often just one encounter per day/session)?
- What do you do to make your fights more challanging for this playstyle?

Thanks,
Thomas

[Neoh]

Dear Fellow DMs,

I am struggling a bit with challanging my players in combat recently. They are 6th level, and lately I threw a self-designed legendary monster at them (for my personal pleasure) that I created with the DMG rules. Had some AoE, 200 Hitpoints, 18 AC, legendary resistance, some attacks for legendary attacks etc. In total about a CR 10 Monster. Naturally they kicked its ass without a sweat (no healing, no one-time use magic items). We even do not play with feats or multiclassing, and I think I am not too liberate with magic items either.

I have read enough about the topic to know some of the common practices to solve this: have lots of minions for those boss monsters, have waves of monsters, adjust hitpoints etc. on the fly and so on.

My biggest problem, however, is that we usually have just one encounter per day. Unless we really run a dungeon, which we do not do that often, it happens that we run 2-3 encounters between levelling up ( I like leveling them, and they like levelling). It is usual that my group is completely fresh in an encounter. I feel this is not an approach I should change too much since we are not very time efficient in our battles. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc. AND they like the other aspects of the game enough that this is balance is right for them.

I would like to know:
- Who else plays that style (often just one encounter per day/session)?
- What do you do to make your fights more challanging for this playstyle?

Thanks,
Thomas


Well, not a DM here, but how about you tell us more about your team?
How many? Race, Class and Subclass and equipment?

[airless_wing]

Ah, the classic single-encounter day.

If your players know that there is only one single Big Bad enemy fight, they are going to burn all of their resources at once on it. The spell casters will go for their highest levels spell, Paladins will smite it to smithereens, Monks can Flurry as long as they want, and everyone can just nova.
I've played games like this before, and it is never truly challenging for the players. Especially if they explicitly know that's how combat will be run.

You've already got one solution: having other enemies to disrupt, draw fire, and do different actions greatly enhances combat. Even a handful of cultists or cult fanatic enemies can make combat more fun against a big bad enemy. I never run a combat session, especially with a big bad, unless they have some form of support. It just adds much more lethality and interesting mechanics to an otherwise straight forward fight.

[kebusmaximus]

There is another solution: the gritty realism variant from the dmg. The only change is that short rests are one night, and long rests are one week. This way one encounter per day means the party can only take a short rest afterwards, unless they have real downtime.

[Protolisk]

There is another solution: the gritty realism variant from the dmg. The only change is that short rests are one night, and long rests are one week. This way one encounter per day means the party can only take a short rest afterwards, unless they have real downtime.

I think this is a great solution for one-encounter-a-day, however switching does have some issues. Without talking to the players before making this change can make them feel very weak very quickly, so they need to be on-board and understand what this change does to their effective strength. Additionally, some spells like Mage Armor that are supposed to work "for a day" (and therefore covers until their next long rest) now only covers a fraction of the time. Combat based 1 minute or 10 minutes are't as heavily effected, but spells like Mage Armor suddenly feel much weaker.

[Sorinth]

If you don't want to change the 1 encounter a day playstyle and don't want to use minions much, one option is for the the monster to use hit and run tactics.

If the party is hunting down some monster, it might ambush them fighting for a round or two before fleeing several times during the day. Have it heal up somewhat between fights and you basically end up with a multi-encounter adventuring day.

Or on a foggy day a monster that can track the PCs without sight might attack and then move back into the fog making it harder for the PCs to locate and attack. This tends to work better then when terrain/abilities simply prevent melee characters from engaging since they don't sit out the fight like sometimes happen when encountering a flying monster.

[Bubzors]

As others said gritty realism could help if you really dont want to have more than one combat encounter a day. Beyond that I also suggest having more encounters that aren't battles. Obstacles, traps, social encounters, all could drain a few resources from the players without taking ad long as a combat. This way they are less fresh for the big fight.

In the end though the players will always feel super strong if you only do one combat a day. The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters a day, so doing only 1 really makes the PCs strong. Honestly you dont even need 6-8, I have found the sweet spot for challenging the players without becoming a slog is 4-6 encounters. But again make one or two of them a trap/obstacle/social to mix it up

[KorvinStarmast]

we usually have just one encounter per day. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc. here are my suggestions based on DMing and GMing various games, and editions of D&D (to include Empire of the Petal Throne back in the day)

1. Do not necessarily end the adventure "day" at the end of the gaming session.
Pick up where you left off, resources expended. All of my groups do that. (Either me as player or me as DM)

2. Have more than one encounter, which leads us to ...

3. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc.

My remedy for this is to make combat move briskly, and to brief my players about combat as follows.

a. Combat is fast and furious. That six second round means that I need you to make decisions decisively. It isn't time to open your book. Know your attacks, know your spells, know your class abilities cold. Know them. Combat is when you apply them, not when you first think about them. (Modern accession to comms: if any of the spells, abilities, attacks confuse you, email or text me before the session so I can give you a clear ruling ahead of time)

b. You need to pay attention to what everyone else is doing: your fellow PC's and the enemy
And if you (PC) don't, that's on you. For the player: keep your PC's mind on the task at hand, which is this combat encounter.

c. When it is your turn, decide and act.
You can ask me two questions (tactical stuff) or three if they are short and sweet. (Orientation, range, what do I see, where isX, stuff like that)

d. You may ask one other PC or NPC something and get an answer ... but If the answer is not immediate, they didn't hear you in the confusion of combat

If all players pay attention, see point b, this helps a lot.

e. If you do not make a decision in time then you Dodge and I move to the next player.
(and if someoe delays, I tell them "you have 15 seconds to decide, what is (char name) doing?"

Once this has happened once, it rarely happens again with a particular PC.

f. underwriting all of this is that the DM does not apply DM metagaming versus the players. You also make concise and quick decisions for your NPC / Monster based on the tatcial plan you had for them going into combat.
What, you didn't have one? OK, make on before combat starts.

What the DM must do: keep the pace of play moving, and err on the side of the players.

And then combat ends.
We all take a breath ... and the pace of play slows down a bit.

Suggestion:
Run a few short combats like this to get your players used to this rhythm.
5/6 groups I have DM'd in this edition enjoy this. One did not, but our cast of players changed so often that it broke up for other reasons. All of our original D&D and 1e games tended to have pacing like this. In EPT we seriously had pacing like this, and it was a group who'd been together for a while playing D&D before that.

What happens when we do this?

Combat is fast, RP is slow.

That's a good thing. Your players seem to like exploration and social RP, and spending time on that rewards them.

Good!

Combat is dangerous (it's supposed to be)

Occasional mistakes will be made, which is fine. Mistakes get made in combat. And then the players get to figure out how to recover from them.

Personal Technique: I award inspiration for some of the "wow!" innovations that players come up with on the fly during combat.

Reminder for the DM here: the NPC/Monsters also have to make decisions quickly. Combat is dangrous for them too.

You have time for multiple combats per session.

[Tanarii]

What happens when you do this?

Combat is fast, RP is slow. That's a good thing. Your players seem to like exploration and social RP, and spending time on that rewards them. Good!

Combat is dangerous (it's supposed to be)

Occasional mistakes will be made, which is fine. Mistakes get made in combat. And then the players get to figure out how to recover from them.

The NPC/Monsters also have to make decisions quickly.

You have time for multiple combats per session.
Honestly I'm surprised more DMs run combat this way. The benefits are huge. The downside is players that like to take their sweet time to think and hate feeling under the gun will feel far too stressed out. And there are plenty of those in TRPGs. (Personally I've found they tend to be the more cerebral types.)

I run a combat heavy game, with maybe a 1/3 of the encounters being Traps and Tricks, or the equivalent of Skill Challenges. In a 3-4 hour session we typically have time for the party to push to the equivalent of 1-1/3 of an adventuring day (with3 short rests), sometimes even adding another 1/3 if they're focusing heavily on combat. The things that slows down table time per difficulty of encounter is Tricks and Traps, which are often technically Easy encounters (not expecting the expenditure of any resources).

But the bigger issue seems to be they just don't want to spend time in combat. And lots of little encounters usually feels like a drag to such players. At which point the two best solutions are extend adventuring days over multiple sessions or gritt realism. Both of which would slow the tables rate of level gain, so I can't see either be a working solution when they want (by my standard) insanely fast leveling.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly I'm surprised more DMs run combat this way. The benefits are huge. The downside is players that like to take their sweet time to think and hate feeling under the gun will feel far too stressed out. And there are plenty of those in TRPGs. (Personally I've found they tend to be the more cerebral types.)
With one group, during a higher level one shot, I was a little less brisk due to them not having grown with their character since level 1. If you grow from level 1 to 11 it's easier to have a feel for your various talents and subtler uses of skills / spells than if you have a level 11 dumped in your lap.

Heh, I had a level 10 monk in a one shot and I totally forgot about being able to deflect missiles/toss them back. Costs me 36 points of damage before I remembered. I hadn't played a monk in over a year so I was rusty.

When I play as a player, I pay attention and I have a solution to hand quickly. (When I play a caster, my mental gears are grinding as soon as I complete one action and the next PC is up. )

PS: the pace of play is on Critical Role or in Coleville's live stream is so slow that I can't watch them.

[stoutstien]

Dear Fellow DMs,

I am struggling a bit with challanging my players in combat recently. They are 6th level, and lately I threw a self-designed legendary monster at them (for my personal pleasure) that I created with the DMG rules. Had some AoE, 200 Hitpoints, 18 AC, legendary resistance, some attacks for legendary attacks etc. In total about a CR 10 Monster. Naturally they kicked its ass without a sweat (no healing, no one-time use magic items). We even do not play with feats or multiclassing, and I think I am not too liberate with magic items either.

I have read enough about the topic to know some of the common practices to solve this: have lots of minions for those boss monsters, have waves of monsters, adjust hitpoints etc. on the fly and so on.

My biggest problem, however, is that we usually have just one encounter per day. Unless we really run a dungeon, which we do not do that often, it happens that we run 2-3 encounters between levelling up ( I like leveling them, and they like levelling). It is usual that my group is completely fresh in an encounter. I feel this is not an approach I should change too much since we are not very time efficient in our battles. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc. AND they like the other aspects of the game enough that this is balance is right for them.

I would like to know:
- Who else plays that style (often just one encounter per day/session)?
- What do you do to make your fights more challanging for this playstyle?

Thanks,
Thomas

-Add more encounters. They don't have to even be combat to be concerned one. Anything that is dangerous and might need them to spend resources will work.
- add a shot clock for combat or anything that requires a fast choice. Why would your NPC stand around and let them discuss the perfect use of every action? Start it slowly and start making them make choices quicker as they get used to it. Could also just use a table talk rule, what they say, everybody hears. If they can't think of anything there is always the dodge action.
- a good leveling rate is X amount of adventuring saying = to their current level for expedited campaigns. Any faster than this they may not get a handle on features gained and neither will you.
- as others have said using hit and run tactics to allow the single npc to survive is both fun and makes narrative sense. Why would the stand toe to toe with the party and get smoked?

[ad_hoc]

Long rests and game sessions are entirely different things.

Our table averages 2 sessions per long rest.

The game is designed for dungeons (and their equivalent). It really doesn't work with just 1 encounter/long rest. There are ways you can make the narrative fit better with the paradigm such as the recommended 1 week or 24 hours for a long rest.

Still, if you're only doing 1 encounter per session, you're looking at 5-6 sessions per long rest which is a long time to go. Plus, 1 level per 2 encounters is so fast. It really sounds like 5e is not the game for your play style. I don't know what you're doing where you're not getting into encounters but it sounds like a different game is probably best if you want to continue that way.


As far as your CR 10 monster against your party of 6th level characters...

That is just barely a deadly encounter for 4 of them or a hard encounter for 5 of them.

Keep in mind that solo monsters (even legendary ones) are not very strong and are weaker the more party members there are.

1 CR 10 with an additional 10 CR 1 allies is a much more dangerous threat but the XP total won't go up very much (as the CR 1s are too low to multiply the CR 10).

[Keravath]

One idea is to have encounters in waves when it makes logical sense.

The players use a lot of resources on the first wave and are then more challenged by the second or even third wave.

1) reinforcements.. if the encounter is somewhere with lots of bad guys around then some of them will hear the fight and show up later.

2) casters with summoning spells .. if they summon up a greater demon then it sticks around even if the caster loses concentration or is killed.

3) multi stage encounters with a time limit so that the players can’t afford to take a rest between each break in the action .. it is all one B.C. encounter just with breaks. A tight time line can be very useful from A plot perspective.

4) encounters with more opponents .. action economy is an important balance element (legendary actions aren’t often enough to balance a big bad guy against a party with a lot of nova damage)

[Tanarii]

PS: the pace of play is on Critical Role or in Coleville's live stream is so slow that I can't watch them.
That's one of several reasons I can't watch CR. In all the ones I did watch, you can see his own players visible not engaged due to the slow pace.

[MaxWilson]

Dear Fellow DMs,

I am struggling a bit with challanging my players in combat recently. They are 6th level, and lately I threw a self-designed legendary monster at them (for my personal pleasure) that I created with the DMG rules. Had some AoE, 200 Hitpoints, 18 AC, legendary resistance, some attacks for legendary attacks etc. In total about a CR 10 Monster. Naturally they kicked its ass without a sweat (no healing, no one-time use magic items). We even do not play with feats or multiclassing, and I think I am not too liberate with magic items either.

I have read enough about the topic to know some of the common practices to solve this: have lots of minions for those boss monsters, have waves of monsters, adjust hitpoints etc. on the fly and so on.

My biggest problem, however, is that we usually have just one encounter per day. Unless we really run a dungeon, which we do not do that often, it happens that we run 2-3 encounters between levelling up ( I like leveling them, and they like levelling). It is usual that my group is completely fresh in an encounter. I feel this is not an approach I should change too much since we are not very time efficient in our battles. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc. AND they like the other aspects of the game enough that this is balance is right for them.

I would like to know:
- Who else plays that style (often just one encounter per day/session)?
- What do you do to make your fights more challanging for this playstyle?

Thanks,
Thomas

Mobility and stealth. If you have your monster kite the PCs while killing one PC at a time (via grapple attack or whatever, like a smart T-Rex), the typical melee-oriented PC party will be unable to bring their firepower to bear on the monster, and it will just be primarily a 1:1 between the grappled PC and the monster, which is bad news for the typical PC.

Don't hesitate either to take opportunity attacks if it leads to taking less damage over the course of a full round, e.g. eating one opportunity attack to fly away 60' is better than taking a full attack sequence from several PCs.

[thomaszwanzinge]

here are my suggestions based on DMing and GMing various games, and editions of D&D (to include Empire of the Petal Throne back in the day)

.....
Combat is dangerous (it's supposed to be)

Occasional mistakes will be made, which is fine. Mistakes get made in combat. And then the players get to figure out how to recover from them.

Personal Technique: I award inspiration for some of the "wow!" innovations that players come up with on the fly during combat.

Reminder for the DM here: the NPC/Monsters also have to make decisions quickly. Combat is dangrous for them too.

You have time for multiple combats per session.

Thanks for your advice, it is reasonable. I will discuss it with the players first, and let's see, maybe I can plan more encounters that way.

[thomaszwanzinge]

Long rests and game sessions are entirely different things.

Our table averages 2 sessions per long rest.

The game is designed for dungeons (and their equivalent). It really doesn't work with just 1 encounter/long rest. There are ways you can make the narrative fit better with the paradigm such as the recommended 1 week or 24 hours for a long rest.

Still, if you're only doing 1 encounter per session, you're looking at 5-6 sessions per long rest which is a long time to go. Plus, 1 level per 2 encounters is so fast. It really sounds like 5e is not the game for your play style. I don't know what you're doing where you're not getting into encounters but it sounds like a different game is probably best if you want to continue that way.


As far as your CR 10 monster against your party of 6th level characters...

That is just barely a deadly encounter for 4 of them or a hard encounter for 5 of them.

Keep in mind that solo monsters (even legendary ones) are not very strong and are weaker the more party members there are.

1 CR 10 with an additional 10 CR 1 allies is a much more dangerous threat but the XP total won't go up very much (as the CR 1s are too low to multiply the CR 10).

It is very possible that this is the case. Alas, I am limited to some systems that get translated to German, because my friends cannot work with English books, handouts etc.

[thomaszwanzinge]

Mobility and stealth. If you have your monster kite the PCs while killing one PC at a time (via grapple attack or whatever, like a smart T-Rex), the typical melee-oriented PC party will be unable to bring their firepower to bear on the monster, and it will just be primarily a 1:1 between the grappled PC and the monster, which is bad news for the typical PC.

Don't hesitate either to take opportunity attacks if it leads to taking less damage over the course of a full round, e.g. eating one opportunity attack to fly away 60' is better than taking a full attack sequence from several PCs.

I am reluctant to "go for the kill", because one player will disengage out of the battle. However, maybe I should do it more, there are enough players that can heal and it might lead to some dramatic action.

[NaughtyTiger]

Keep in mind that solo monsters (even legendary ones) are not very strong and are weaker the more party members there are.

it took me a while to figure this out. but it's huge.
4 players = 4 actions + 4 reactions.
legendary monster = 2 actions (maybe 3) + 1 reaction

[MoiMagnus]

Dear Fellow DMs,

I would like to know:
- Who else plays that style (often just one encounter per day/session)?
- What do you do to make your fights more challanging for this playstyle?

Thanks,
Thomas

How to deal with "one encounter per day" without having to change the balance? Change the short rest as a night of sleep, and the long rest as a day of resting.

However, you might want to go to the opposite direction, asking How to change the balance to accommodate for "one encounter per day"? (Because honestly, "one encounter per day with everyone going Nova-style" is quite interesting too). Here are my suggestions:
1) Replace every "per short rest" or "per encounter" to be "3 times per day". The short rest no longer exist in your game, it would be unfair to keep it for some powers.
2) Use "squad of enemies". A squad of enemies is a group that behave as "one entity" they move at the same time, and make a common action like "firing at the same guy". (A group of "mage snipers" will roll a unique attack dice, and make damage proportional to the number of snipers. While a group of standard archers will make a zone attack, which is a save against Dex). This allow to take care of tons of enemies at once.
3) Use the terrain to make the encounter unique. You're in front of the Mage's tower? Did you know the tower actually knows how to defend itself and attack you with some thunderbolt/huge rocks/...
3b) You can combine 2 & 3, buy having a squad of enemies which is essentially part of the terrain, like a group of cultists about to summon a big devil if you don't kill them early enough (they use their turn to add "one charge" to the invocation, and the big devil arrive once a certain number of charge is reached).
4) Use waves of enemies.
5) When the plot would ask for some minor fight, ask for skill tests & what resources they want to spend during the fight and continue (if they fail the tests and/or under-spend resources, arbitrary roll an adequate number of damages against them and then continue anyway).

[Segev]

Mobility and stealth. If you have your monster kite the PCs while killing one PC at a time (via grapple attack or whatever, like a smart T-Rex), the typical melee-oriented PC party will be unable to bring their firepower to bear on the monster, and it will just be primarily a 1:1 between the grappled PC and the monster, which is bad news for the typical PC.

Don't hesitate either to take opportunity attacks if it leads to taking less damage over the course of a full round, e.g. eating one opportunity attack to fly away 60' is better than taking a full attack sequence from several PCs.

...parties are usually "melee-oriented" to the point that staying at range is an advantage for the monsters? I, admittedly, only have one game I'm running to measure by, but in my experience, the further the fight starts from the PCs, the worse off my monsters are. Monsters typically don't have much, if anything, in the way of ranged options, and even the most melee-oriented of my PCs - the half-orc barbarian - has ranged weapons: a shortbow and javelins. The only one who lacked range at all was a monk who could cover 100 feet in a round if he had to, and still spend his action attacking. He recently got swapped out for IC reasons (his personal reason for adventuring was resolved, so he left) by an elven warlock.

I will have to try a hit-and-run monster, though. It will take some finesse to get right, I think, but that could be entertaining.

[MrStabby]

A big thing for me was when I deliberately changed my DM style to the antagonists sharing the strategic initiative.

If the players always are the attackers or the people moving, then they get to chose when to do so. It is harder to chose when to be attacked.

If the players attack, they can withdraw when low on resources. If the fight comes to them then it can be a lot harder and they might lose stuff left behind.

If the party is attacked the attackers can wait for the party to load up on buffs and otherwise expend resources, then slip away. Use illusions to draw out fireballs. Lure charging PCs into traps. Be mean.

Lay ambushes, use divination magic against the party, use out of combat spells and abilities to get an advantage. If the party isn't scared about the surprised condition then you are being too nice.

[MaxWilson]

...parties are usually "melee-oriented" to the point that staying at range is an advantage for the monsters?

Well, it kind of depends on player experience. Players at my table* generally learn over time what are the strengths/limitations of melee-oriented builds like Barbarians (outdoors, will have to exploit terrain, darkness or stealth in order to close with ranged enemies like enemy soldiers) and sometimes quit playing those types, but my sense of 5E forums and of other DMs' games is that melee-heavy classes like Paladins and Barbarians are nevertheless quite popular in the metagame culture. So, my advice is aimed at tables where players haven't yet adapted their behavior to this reality, which seems to be a lot of them, but ultimately my statement about "usually" is just a guess based on experience and observation.

* I'm not currently running 5E but I did for years.

Also, when I say "the typical melee-oriented PC party" that means "the typical (melee-oriented PC party)" not "the (typical melee-oriented PC party)". I'm not trying to claim that most PC parties are melee-oriented, even though they seem to be common, just that if they are melee-oriented this tactic will cause them problems.


I, admittedly, only have one game I'm running to measure by, but in my experience, the further the fight starts from the PCs, the worse off my monsters are. Monsters typically don't have much, if anything, in the way of ranged options, and even the most melee-oriented of my PCs - the half-orc barbarian - has ranged weapons: a shortbow and javelins. The only one who lacked range at all was a monk who could cover 100 feet in a round if he had to, and still spend his action attacking. He recently got swapped out for IC reasons (his personal reason for adventuring was resolved, so he left) by an elven warlock.

I will have to try a hit-and-run monster, though. It will take some finesse to get right, I think, but that could be entertaining.

It sounds like your players have already made the adjustment, or maybe it was just obvious to them from the beginning that you shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, and that 5E is D&D: Gunfight Edition.

[deljzc]

Some very good ideas in this thread to create challenging encounters without just using stronger monsters.

I would also recommend mixing and matching monsters into groups. It is very easy for DM's to look in the Monster Manual, pick one monster type and roll with that (in a certain number). What is harder (and this is harder to DM the encounter as well) is create a group of various monsters. I thought the 4th edition Monster Manual was very good on this (it had recommended group encounters for each type of monster).

Also, don't be afraid to think about the noise of an encounter. The idea adventurers just walk into a dungeon and the encounters are room #1, room #2, room #3, etc. just doesn't make sense. If there is noise, monsters show up. Use range attacks and then retreats. Consider waves of monsters (round 1-2 is whats in the room, round 3-4, more monsters show up, etc.).

A good encounter has tension and tension can be created by not knowing what's coming through the door next or hearing something BIG coming down the hallway towards where the fight is happening.

[MaxWilson]

Also, don't be afraid to think about the noise of an encounter. The idea adventurers just walk into a dungeon and the encounters are room #1, room #2, room #3, etc. just doesn't make sense. If there is noise, monsters show up. Use range attacks and then retreats. Consider waves of monsters (round 1-2 is whats in the room, round 3-4, more monsters show up, etc.).

One pretty easy way to do this is to decide up front how many monsters are in the encounter (10d10 goblins?) and then have them trickle out over time in response to time, e.g. 1d10 new goblins every round. It also feels more realistic for the goblins to take some time gathering their forces: maybe some of them were sleeping and had to put on clothers, others didn't hear the alarm at first, another was in the goblin bathroom...

In some ways it makes it easier on players to not have to face the full 53 goblins all at once, but in other ways it can make it harder: someone may cast Hypnotic Pattern on a clump of 7 goblins expecting to neutralize most of the encounter, but then it turns out that that's only about 10% of the encounter and now they have to either drop concentration on the first group and waste a spell slot, or switch to non-concentration spells. IMO having some gradual reveals like that is more fun for the players as well because it means that recon (knowing how many enemies there are) and good planning are more important than die-rolling. Maybe it really is better for your heavily-armored paladin to show up with a white flag asking for a parlay, let the goblins surround him, and then have your hidden invisible wizard hit them with a Hypnotic Pattern or Fireball just when all the goblins are reaching for their weapons.

[Kane0]

My biggest problem, however, is that we usually have just one encounter per day. Unless we really run a dungeon, which we do not do that often, it happens that we run 2-3 encounters between levelling up ( I like leveling them, and they like levelling). It is usual that my group is completely fresh in an encounter. I feel this is not an approach I should change too much since we are not very time efficient in our battles. They take their sweet time with coming up with their actions etc. AND they like the other aspects of the game enough that this is balance is right for them.


You have accurately located your problem. If the PCs are always going into an encounter at 100% then it is very difficult to challenge them, because D&D combat uses a lot of resource management and attrition.
Try the Gritty rest variant in the DMG.

[MaxWilson]

Try the Gritty rest variant in the DMG.

Why do people always mention Gritty rest? It changes nothing: you're still reliant on attrition to produce dramatic tension, and the OP has explicitly disavowed interest in switching to an attrition model, which makes sense because attrition often doesn't work narratively. "Will Bob use more than half his spell slots?" is a boring dramatic question compared to "will Bob survive the assassin?"

I mentioned mobility and stealth earlier in this thread, but other ways to produce dramatic tension without relying on attrition include:

Large encounters, and it's up to the players to divide-and-conquer the enemy (e.g. a hobgoblin warcamp with four guard towers and 10d10 hobgoblins inside--if players just walk up and start fighting they may have to fight all the hobgoblins at once, but maybe they can scale the guard towers at night and quietly kill the guards in each tower separately and then do the same to each barracks, especially with spells like Pass Without Trace to win surprise).

High uncertainty. Risk is not knowing the outcome; uncertainty is not even knowing the probabilities. An uncertain encounter would be e.g. an apparently-mad old woman with her retinue of dancing frogs and a pot of gold, who lives in a creepy hut in the forest. Did you kill her for her gold or because she seems like she might be evil? If you try, do you basically just cut her throat, or does she turn out to be an Annis Hag and all of the dancing frogs are actually Banderhobs under an illusion? Another way to produce uncertainty would be e.g. players are exploring a cave system from a hole in a glacier, and if they go under a waterfall in this direction to see what's behind them, they don't know if something from the other direction is going to sneak up on them from behind and cut off their retreat. Another way to produce uncertainty is e.g. "are vampires really not allowed to enter inhabited dwellings without invitation or is that just folklore? because our whole plan depends on it being true and if not we're toast." One nice thing about uncertainty is that it keeps working even if 80% of the time things turn out to be okay and nobody attacks from behind/info on vampires is correct/the old lady is exactly what she looks like. There will still be that tension in the back of the players' minds that this time might be the time things go horribly wrong and they need to fall back on Plan B, Plan C, and Plan Z.

Proactive monsters. Most of the time, players are the ones kicking down doors and sneaking through caves, but every once in a while (maybe 10-20% of the time) throw off their tempo by making a monster move first: players are busy discussing how they will conduct their assault on the hobgoblin camp while the DM quietly makes a note that a Hobgoblin Iron Shadow just stole their rope and is sneaking back to camp with intel. DM interrupts the players to ask for Perception checks, and if any of them roll high enough they will have a chance to chase the Iron Shadow back to camp and avoid alerting all of the hobgoblins. If not, the hobgoblins will be prepared for their attack or may even take the initiative and strike first.

[Randomthom]

Partly you've mad a rod for your own back here, let me explain.

By conditioning your players to the one-encounter adventuring day, you've taught them that "going nova" is normal gameplay. Consequently, you've made it much harder to challenge them. Your monster is going to get maybe 5 turns at most which means that on those turns it needs to be nasty, there's a problem though... Not nasty enough the players don't feel scared and don't expend resources beyond what they can regenerate by the next fight. Too nasty & you might kill a player.

You're no longer playing D&D, you're playing rocket tag.

Don't worry, there's a bunch of useful tricks & tools you can use but you're going to have to do something else first... break the rules. Monsters in D&D break the rules all the time so don't worry too much about it but you're going to have to break the game's action economy somewhat to make a single monster feel nasty.

Before I go further, I really REALLY recommend Matt Colville's most recent video on his youtube channel titled "Action-Oriented Monsters | Running the Game #84". You can probably stop reading my ramblings and instead listen to his & have most of the answers you need.

So, D&D 5e's CR is mostly balanced around even numbers on both sides of a battle. If you want to run a single mob you need to give it approximately 4-5 extra actions to make it work. Legendary Actions, Lair Actions, Reactions are all good ways to do this.

Maybe you want to challenge the PCs with a ninja assassin attack. Give it legendary actions to move without provoking AoOs or to turn invisible. Give it a nasty sneak attack. Give it the ability to turn one of the party into it's likeness and swap locations with them (cha save?). Give it enough HP to survive a few hits and, my favourite, 1d4 legendary saves for that slight element of randomness!

Regarding legendary saves, I narrate uses of it's saves as successes, maybe with a little embellishment that a rules-savvy player might pick up on "aaah, it actually succeeded but he burned one of his legendary saves". Doing it like this makes it feel less like the player got cheated and even if they work it out, the players feel smart for having learned that knowledge without being given it.

[MoiMagnus]

...parties are usually "melee-oriented" to the point that staying at range is an advantage for the monsters?

Most PC I've met don't switch weapons. If they have a bow, they don't have a melee weapon. If they have a melee weapon, they don't have a ranged weapon. (For that reason, thrown weapons are not really popular, since once you throw your weapon, you no longer have your weapon in hand, which mean you need a backup weapon).

But then, I'd say that in 5e, with the number of classes having access to ranged cantrip (usable in unlimited ways), PCs tend to be able to attack ranged enemies without too many problems.

[da newt]

IMO, I think there are 2 very simple things that have created your "issue."

1) An adventuring party vs. one monster is inherently unbalanced (unless that monster is X times as powerful as the party members where X = the number of party members). 1 vs many allows them to gang up on the single monster.
Create more encounters with multiple bad guys. Just for fun, create a band of bad guys that are the Bizarro version of your party and have them face off, for example. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World)

2) One encounter per day is too simple / easy. It allows your players to expend all their capabilities every encounter. One combat per gaming session can still be your norm if that is the pace everyone likes, but have multiple sessions per game day so that only a short rest is possible every encounter or two, and a long rest (over night) is only possible every 4 - 6 encounters.

Making these very simple adjustments should address most of your "issue."

[Segev]

Most PC I've met don't switch weapons. If they have a bow, they don't have a melee weapon. If they have a melee weapon, they don't have a ranged weapon. (For that reason, thrown weapons are not really popular, since once you throw your weapon, you no longer have your weapon in hand, which mean you need a backup weapon).

But then, I'd say that in 5e, with the number of classes having access to ranged cantrip (usable in unlimited ways), PCs tend to be able to attack ranged enemies without too many problems.
Weird. Most games I've been in, on either side of the DM screen, PCs have a melee and ranged option. EAch of them make a point of it. The exceptions tend to be when the ranged option can be used in melee, or when making a noncombat character in a game that isn't centered around combat/where avoiding combat is an expected option.


As to dealing with PCs who truly nova every encounter, knowing they have only one per day, that's fixed by every now and again throwing in a second encounter in the day. Especially if the second encounter is worse/stronger/more dangerous than the first. Make them fear the Bigger Spider.

Also, you can try a "hell day." That is, one day where they just keep having encounters. If you can string them together narratively, so that they're unknowingly essentially running a short gauntlet dungeon that makes thematic sense, all the better.

Basically, you want them guessing whether they can afford to nova or not.

[Keravath]

You could try this scenario on them ...

1) Encounter 1: Invade a bandit base to take them out. Find and fight quite a few bandits including the second in command. However, the players don't know that the bulk of the bandit forces were actually out raiding.

2) Players decide it is time to leave and head out. (They think their work is done).

2) Bulk of bandit forces start to return. Scouts discover they have been raided and track the players. Scouts send runners back to the main force.
A) Encounter 2: Band of scouts and bandits attack to slow down the players. Players win and either keep moving or set up a camp/base.
B) Encounter 3: Lead elements of the main force arrive and engage players (probably less than an hour after the last encounter)

3) If the players set up a defensible camp
A) Encounter 4: Bulk of bandit force including the leader shows up. All the bandits have a level of exhaustion from running.

4) If the players kept moving.
A) Bandits take a short cut through the countryside (assuming they know it better than the players). Depending on how fast the players were moving both sides could be tired.
Encounter 4: Lead elements of main force engage players
Encounter 5: Bandit leader shows up to finish off the players.

The players go in thinking the bandit camp was the target and walk out knowing that they need to remember that things may never be that simple. Go easy on them rather than TPK ... perhaps the bandit leader demands their surrender, takes their stuff, ties them up and leaves them trussed up outside town to humiliate them.

This type of scenario is an ongoing encounter that provides no time for a long rest no matter how much the players have used up their resources. The players might manage 1 or 2 short rests depending on how the DM introduces the challenges.

P.S. The follow up could be that the "bandits" are actually a covert invasion force or a migrating tribe moving into the area which would account for their larger numbers compared to a typical "bandit" group. The locals just called them "bandits".

[MaxWilson]

Also, you can try a "hell day." That is, one day where they just keep having encounters. If you can string them together narratively, so that they're unknowingly essentially running a short gauntlet dungeon that makes thematic sense, all the better.

Heh. That sounds like a a Dresden Files novel: just when you thought things couldn't get any worse...

[KorvinStarmast]

Heh. That sounds like a a Dresden Files novel: just when you thought things couldn't get any worse...

It's the encounter string that I am about to drop on a party of 6th level characters tonight.
They'll keep getting CR 6 - CR 8 encounters until they find the gate and close it. :smallbiggrin:

My problem in pacing is: how many people show up? With 3 I'll need to massage it a bit more than with 5.

They already had the day start by burning some 3d level spells on the first encounter that came out of the gate. Of course, they don't realize that the gate is inside the building down a level, nor do they know that the gate was opened by a Medusa ... but they suspect something like a basalisk or a gorgon or a medusa based on the statues in the town square)

We are "picking up where we left off" last session.

[MaxWilson]

It's the encounter string that I am about to drop on a party of 6th level characters tonight.
They'll keep getting CR 6 - CR 8 encounters until they find the gate and close it. :smallbiggrin:

Awesome.

The thing is though, not every day can be a Dresden Files day without a reason or the world starts to feel contrived, so it's still good to develop techniques for making non-attrition-based play interesting. I've mentioned some techniques but here's another: unresolved tension. Exploring a ruined castle and having an 18-second vampire fight at the end of it feels completely different from meeting a vampire outside a ruined castle, refusing to enter its service, having one inconclusive battle with it (it escapes and regenerates), and then stalking and being stalked by it through the locked doors and treacherous ruins of an ancient castle, searching for its resting place and trying to grant it the Final Death. Even climbing a wall or unlocking a door has extra tension when the players know that an enemy may be watching them, waiting to exploit a weakness.

I suppose that's more of a van Helsing day (or Sherlock Holmes day?) than a Harry Dresden day, but IMO it's good to know how to run both. And I guess even Harry Dresden also has a van Helsing days, e.g. Ghost Story was almost entirely about one big long encounter with the Grey Ghost.


My problem in pacing is: how many people show up? With 3 I'll need to massage it a bit more than with 5.

They already had the day start by burning some 3d level spells on the first encounter that came out of the gate. Of course, they don't realize that the gate is inside the building down a level, nor do they know that the gate was opened by a Medusa ... but they suspect something like a basalisk or a gorgon or a medusa based on the statues in the town square)

We are "picking up where we left off" last session.

Sounds like fun!

[Tanarii]

Why do people always mention Gritty rest?
Because it solves the problem for folks who havent realized the abstract rest system doesnt have to be tied to an in-game day.

Edit: although not for those that don't realize it also technically doesn't have to be tied to sessions. Although it my personal preference to do so, its certainly not required.

[MrStabby]

Because it solves the problem for folks who havent realized the abstract rest system doesnt have to be tied to an in-game day.

Edit: although not for those that don't realize it also technically doesn't have to be tied to sessions. Although it my personal preference to do so, its certainly not required.

I think there is also an element of agency and plot activity there as well. So of course as a DM you can still throw the same number of encounters at the party between rests irrespective of the time scales involved. On the other hand this can strain credulity when different hostile encounters take a ticket to wait in line to attack the party as soon as the previous encounter has been dispatched.

With a week between long rests it is easier to set up a plot where it feels less contrived to to ask the PCs to do something before something bad happens. A constant barrage of "Do this before the end of the day or you are in trouble" doesn't feel realistic. The same request but with a deadline between a day and a week gives a lot more flexibility.

It also makes some things like mummy rot a lot more dangerous.

[Kane0]

Why do people always mention Gritty rest? It changes nothing: you're still reliant on attrition to produce dramatic tension, and the OP has explicitly disavowed interest in switching to an attrition model, which makes sense because attrition often doesn't work narratively. "Will Bob use more than half his spell slots?" is a boring dramatic question compared to "will Bob survive the assassin?"


Attrition is baked into the combat system, you have limited resources (per rest features, spell slots, HP, Hit Dice) that get spent as fights progress. If you wanted to escape that model you would have to seriously change the system or pick another one.

The longer rest variant is suggested because it's an easy change, instead of increasing challenge by drastically changing your encounter design or cramming multiple encounters into one adventuring day where it doesn't make sense to, you instead extend the adventuring day over multiple in game days.

I've been on both sides of the DM screen with regards to both of these. They both work if the DM does it properly, but one is definitely more work for the DM than the other.

[KorvinStarmast]

Awesome.

The thing is though, not every day can be a Dresden Files day without a reason or the world starts to feel contrived, so it's still good to develop techniques for making non-attrition-based play interesting. Yeah, for sure.

It's not like there have not been hints ... some towns have been overrun, the local orc tribes are missing people, and their first encounter in the town was the day after a dawn strike on the party camp by a chimera who came in out of the rising sun. (I assigned disadvantage to the Perception checks of the twon on watch, but of course my nephew rolled 22 and 19 ... for a DC 15 detection of the chimera gliding in out of the sun rise ... so it goes)

And when they got there, two lamia had enslaved some humans, orcs, and orogs to begin building / restoring ruined buildings, and the one large building in the town had a new and very strong door replacing the one that had been there previously. Burn marks all over the walls .... and after defeating the Lamia, and bedding down, for the night, they were attacked in the mid watch by A squad of NPC knights re skinned as Hoplytes.

(And the party had already seen the statue/farmer in the town square)

So yeah, there's some context to "Something's happening here ..."

Their larger mission is to rescue the orcs and return them to their tribe, which tribe will then give the party the 40 or so human hostages/slaves they have ....

(And the other thread that they don't know about yet is that the human leader miles to the south who wants those hostages back has sent two assassins after the party .... since he doesn't actually want to pay the bounty, and he doesn't like having a powerful party of "heroes" in his zip code ...)

[MaxWilson]

The longer rest variant is suggested because it's an easy change, instead of increasing challenge by drastically changing your encounter design or cramming multiple encounters into one adventuring day where it doesn't make sense to, you instead extend the adventuring day over multiple in game days.

All Gritty Rest does really is superficially change the optics: now you're reliant on giving the players a Harry Dresden week instead of a Harry Dresden day, but players who want to play cautiously can still hole up somewhere safe whenever they're feeling threatened, and instead of resting for 24 hours they rest for 7 days. Or they learn spells like Healing Spirit and Catnap which restore spent resources more quickly.

Yes, yes, Gritty Rest does change a couple more things too: you can now have PCs wound an enemy and drive it off, and have that sound still be relevant two hours later; Rope Trick and Mage Armor become pointless, though Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't change; Animate Dead becomes suicide to cast. But from the standpoint of a DM brainstorming ways to structure adventures, you're still going to need either a time constraint on PC actions (either an explicit deadline or a living world with consequences for delay) or encounters which are difficult/complex enough to still be dramatically interesting even when PCs are well-rested.

[malachi]

The thing is though, not every day can be a Dresden Files day without a reason or the world starts to feel contrived, so it's still good to develop techniques for making non-attrition-based play interesting.


All Gritty Rest does really is superficially change the optics: now you're reliant on giving the players a Harry Dresden week instead of a Harry Dresden day, but players who want to play cautiously can still hole up somewhere safe whenever they're feeling threatened, and instead of resting for 24 hours they rest for 7 days. Or they learn spells like Healing Spirit and Catnap which restore spent resources more quickly.

Yes, yes, Gritty Rest does change a couple more things too: you can now have PCs wound an enemy and drive it off, and have that sound still be relevant two hours later; Rope Trick and Mage Armor become pointless, though Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't change; Animate Dead becomes suicide to cast. But from the standpoint of a DM brainstorming ways to structure adventures, you're still going to need either a time constraint on PC actions (either an explicit deadline or a living world with consequences for delay) or encounters which are difficult/complex enough to still be dramatically interesting even when PCs are well-rested.

Gritty Realism rests allow for a different set of encounter-frequencies without making the world feel contrived. It just so happens that this set of encounter-frequencies seems to better match some major source-influencing material (like Lord of the Rings).

Whereas the baseline resting-rate suggests a story pacing more like the Dresden Files or John Wick (granted, I've only seen the 3rd movie, so I'm not sure if the other two work the same - I've been meaning to see the others for a while).

I don't think I'd go so far as to say that "superficially changing the optics" is a meaningful negative, when one of the primary reasons I see DMs struggling with pacing is because of the worries about making the world feel contrived if they stick with the default rest-rate.


Granted, when the alternate resting rules were written, they didn't take into account spell / ability durations (for instance, how many animated skeletons can a wizard, let alone a warlock, have in a Heroic Rest game with 10-minute SR's and 1-hour LR's?). That looks like an oversight by the developers, but not a critical flaw (although it does require a conversation between the DM and players as to which durations get impacted and which don't)

[MaxWilson]

Gritty Realism rests allow for a different set of encounter-frequencies without making the world feel contrived. It just so happens that this set of encounter-frequencies seems to better match some major source-influencing material (like Lord of the Rings)... I don't think I'd go so far as to say that "superficially changing the optics" is a meaningful negative, when one of the primary reasons I see DMs struggling with pacing is because of the worries about making the world feel contrived if they stick with the default rest-rate.

I'll let other DMs speak for themselves, but speaking for myself only, the biggest difference I see between 5E and Lord of the Rings is not the resting rate--it's the encounter structure. Lord of the Rings, like the Dresden Files and most other literature I've seen, is not an attrition-based narrative. When Frodo and Samwise are hiding from the Ring-wraiths, the question we're concerned about isn't "Will the Ring-wraiths force Frodo and Samwise to nova with all of their abilities in order to defeat them, thereby putting Frodo and Sam at risk in future encounters?" No, we want to know if the Ring-wraiths will kill them. It's implicit that Frodo and Sam are already in top form as hobbit civilians go, it's just that the Ring-wraiths are far, far deadlier than they are. When Gandalf faces down Saruman and loses, it's not because Gandalf was having an off-day after spending too many spell slots elsewhere--Saruman is just better than Gandalf is. The Balrog doesn't have an edge on Gandalf because Gandalf has been fighting orcs--it has an edge on him because it's one of Morgoth's mighty lieutenants.

As far as I can tell, Lord of the Rings models what is essentially a zero-attrition game. All of the danger comes in the moment (facing an orc army, cornered by a Balrog, betrayed by a treacherous wizard, etc.), not from deaths of a thousand cuts. The closest thing Lord of the Rings has to an attrition story is Frodo and Sam as they journey through Mordor, and while I'm no Tolkien expert I seem to recall that the attrition that mattered there was all about food and losing strength to travel, not ever-increasing danger of dying in a fight. (5E trivializes that kind of attrition anyway via e.g. the Outlander background--resting isn't even involved.)

If you want to model Lord of the Rings, you might as well keep the same default rest rate because you're not relying on attrition. You're relying on putting PCs in extremely deadly situations which they need to think, sneak, or fight their way through in order to accomplish very important goals. So we might as well do what the OP asked for and offer ideas for making these kinds of encounters more interesting, and I've done my best to do so.

[Tanarii]

With a week between long rests it is easier to set up a plot where it feels less contrived to to ask the PCs to do something before something bad happens. A constant barrage of "Do this before the end of the day or you are in trouble" doesn't feel realistic. The same request but with a deadline between a day and a week gives a lot more flexibility.
Personally I find it hard to keep encounters down to the 3-6 of a nornal adventuring day, it still feels a little contrived, or more commonly like the players intentionally cut the day short. I dont get how people can have a session with less than 3 encounters in an in-game day without it being either boring & unrealistic, or an attempt to force D&D to do a genre it doesn't do very well.

[MaxWilson]

Personally I find it hard to keep encounters down to the 3-6 of a nornal adventuring day, it still feels a little contrived, or more commonly like the players intentionally cut the day short. I dont get how people can have a session with less than 3 encounters in and in-game day withoit it being either boring & unrealistic, or an atyempt to force D&D to do a genre it doesnt do very well.

Perhaps you are counting encounters differently than I do. Discussion on these forums has revealed that what I consider one encounter sometimes counts as many, many encounters in the eyes of certain DMs.

So my question for you is: how do YOU partition 6 or so groups of monsters in a relatively small enclosed area to guarantee zero interactivity between them, yet guarantee that PCs will interact with every group? Because that's what it would take to make it 6 separate encounters in my book, and that's fairly implausible. 2-3 is much easier to imagine, as long as some of the monsters are loners like the garbage monster in Star Wars.

[Segev]

Looking at the 10 days worth of encounters I've rolled up (and then tried to make more interesting) for my players as they explore Chult looking for Orolunga, I think the most likely source of any attrition is going to come from the 3-4 night-time encounters that can actively disrupt their long rest.

It's nothing fancy, but here's the rundown:

Day 1, Morning: Both guides make their checks.
1 Kamadan ambushes the party, Perception DC 16 to avoid surprise. DC 15 Survival to find its lair. Opens with sleep gas.

Day 2, night: Giant Poisonous Snake attacks Yaegorn during 2nd watch. Perception DC 14 or be surprised.
Day 2, morning: Neither guide makes his check. Hew points South; Musharib NW.
Day 2, afternoon: Cyclops (named Ptoem) is heading south towards his home in Snapping Turtle Bay. He speaks Giant. Not looking for a fight, but can be provoked if the party is belligerent.

Day 3, morning: Both guides make their checks
Day 3, late afternoon: Giant lizards sunning themselves on some rocks. Easily avoided.

Day 3->Day 4, about camp-time: DC 13 Perception to spot a wooden platform in a tree. Imreth can recognize an Emerald Enclave outpost, 50 ft off the ground. 10 ft. square; supports 6 characters and their gear. DC 12 Athletics to climb the tree.

Day 4, morning: 6 cannibals chase down a small rotting zombie that is running strangely athletically. If the characters investigate, they find that there's a gemstone in the zombie's head. Should they manage to rescue him, he's a N Apprentice wizard whose Thayan master paid good money to watch Nanny Pu'pu raise him from the dead. He’s down to 8 maximum hp.
* Hew points NW; Musharib makes check

Day 5, night: 5 grungs +1 elite grung warrior with giant wasp mounts. The grungs sneak into camp (successfully, because disadvantage makes the Perception DC 19), catching the party by surprise. When any grung is reduced to half hp or lower, he or another whistles to summon the wasps in to fight. Grungs at half or lower hp retreat on wasp-back; if 3 or more grungs, or the leader, are out of the fight, the remainder retreat as well.
Day 5, morning: Hew makes check; Musharib points NE.

Day 6, night: 2 Assassin Vines attempt to use their vine entangling ability to disable sleepers during first watch, and creep into camp while they're distracted.
Day 6, morning: Both guides make checks

Day 6, afternoon: 5 nearby tree branches transform into 15-foot long snakes without warning and launch at the party. DC 14 PErception not to be surprised. These are Jaculis. Their hide is useful for boots of striding and springing & cloaks of invisibility.

Day 7, night: A wild boar races through camp during third watch. 4 deinonychuses are chasing right behind it, but decide the camp looks like a better hunting ground and attack. This interrupts the long rest.
Day 7, morning: Hew makes check, Musharib points SE.

Day 7, afternoon: If Ptoem wasn't killed, they run across him again as he is still making his way home. He may or may not have gotten a little turned around. If they're within 40 miles of Orolunga, he came from there within 1 day per 10 miles off.

Day 8, morning: Hew makes check; Musharib points NW

Day 9, night: As the party finds a spot to camp for the night, they discover a slimy trail. A DC 10 Survival check determines which direction the creature was going. Consulting Volo's Guide to Monsters suggests that the iridescent nature of the slime and the size of the trail is such that it's a Flail Snail. If they track it down, it takes only an hour before they sleep, and one additional hour per watch they wait. 4 hours in the morning.
When tracking it down, they come across 3 mantraps, spaced 10 ft apart and which trigger only when the party is within their central reach.
Day 9, morning: Both guides fail. Hew points SW; Musharib points NW (along the trail of the snail).

Day 10, night: During 3rd watch, 7 flying monkeys swoop in and try to steal stuff.
Day 10, morning: Both guides fail. Hew points SE, Musharib NW.
Day 10, afternoon: 8 grungs on flying wasps, with an elite warrior, swoop in to attack. If any survived from before, they make up some of this number.


I still need to come up with names, and I'm not thrilled with the last night-time encounter as it strikes me as dull; I need to come up with something to add character to it.

I don't think they'll really be challenged to the brink, here, but I think they'll feel like they are. It's worth noting that I actually rolled up encounters for every time slot on every day, then rolled the d20s to see which ones actually happened. I then moved a few around, keeping ones that sounded more interesting and switching them in for ones that "should" have been kept by the dice but bored me. I especially kept my eye on encounter ideas I could merge, mix, or turn into something narratively interesting by enabling it to come up again later.

In the end, my goal is to have my players feel like they're exploring and finding neat things, give them some tools to try to maximize their ability to find Orolunga, and feel like they're in danger, even if I don't feel like I'm threatening them all that much from my side of the DM screen.

[djreynolds]

What's the question?

Do you want to challenge your PCs?

Give them a good beating to keep their egos in check?

Take your time and really read their character sheets, look at strengths and weaknesses and develop from there.

You can have a battle that really allows the archer to show off, or the wizard's fireball to gobble up goblin fodder

There is nothing like watching your player's paladin cut through undead.

And you can have a battle that forces them to really act as a team.

So here is an idea... they are not the only adventurers in town.... or in the dungeon. Perhaps some warlock decided to stay and lead the orcs. Or a cleric turned a tribe of bugbears to his faith.

Victory doesn't always have to be the answer, you can make something so overpowering that they need to retreat.

Or you can let the players have a good time and crush it and always win.

So the question is what do you and your players want to do for the few hours they're playing?

Do you get offended that they tap-danced all over your evil DM schemes? Because this has happened to myself, I had my vision and the players have their own? I lost, but the players had lots of fun

And that's a question, what are you getting out of DMing? What do you want? Do you want to create a huge grand world and story line? Do you just want to read a script? Do you care if PCs die?

If you want more control of the game, I would recommend running Curse of Strahd. The PCs are really at your mercy.

If you want the players to shine, I liked running Rise of Tiamat.

If you are just looking for straight-forward play, that you can pick and drop and pick up later... I recommend Dungeon of the Mad Mage

[Dreadfull]

My players like to have 1 combat a day too. Now I dont always keep to it but when i do i still want my players resources drained some of the times. I solved this with a few random encounter tables i keep at hand and by making most of these encounters drain resources. The other more important thing i did is interrupting their rests often because of where they decide to rest. Things like "another party of adventurers wakes you with their screams as they run into you. They are scared senseles." Maybe they shouldn't have camped so close to the road? This interrupts their rest and prevents them from fully getting their short or long rest. If they investigate it turns out some tiny cute creature just used a fear effect or something other insignificant is the source. If they ignore it you can either turn it into something bigger or returrn half of what they normally would have gotten or something.

As many people mentioned this is a game of attrition. Be creative in draining their stats.

One of your players keeps gathering resources from dead monsters? Roll a con save. Failed? BAM! the player now contracted a sickness. now they need to waste a potion or spell to cure it.
Players keep looting everything? Use more curses and traps.
They are travelling? Obstacles occur that drain resources to pass. Like a storm put several trees down on the road over several miles. Or bandits demand payment to leave the players alone.
Every once in a while throw in some stuff that gives them some restoration to make it feel more fair. but overall just keep draining their resources to create tension. Also, what you reward them doesn't have to always be good in combat, like a favor with one of the local factions.
preferably scale this with whatever is going on with your players. They mess with nobles? Send assassins. They cleared half a dungeon? The remaining yuan-ti are wondering why half their patrols didn't come back and they send a patrol.
There are so many ways to go about this. just be creative and make your monsters and NPC's think. Everyone wants something and what the players get in return might not always be good in combat. What they want form the players might be assistance with all sorts of tasks.
Then after draining their resources with world obstacles and social encounters good luck in that combat where they have just the nova's and half their other stuff left.
Made that one encounter a day a lot more intense no matter what i throw at my players.

[Asensur]

Two solutions:

1. Time pressure on missions

2. Punish overrests (4th short rest/2nd long rest at day) with enemy ambushes.

[opaopajr]

KorvinStarmast's old skool advice really resonates my experience. Go ahead and expect speed from players. I personally prefer the old method of Declare Action before Roll Initiative, because that keeps things moving fast and avoids "Pause-Button Tactics" dithering. (Also Group Initiative works fine and speeds up things a lot. :smallwink:)

Further, put yourself in the monster's shoes. This act alone helps you change the pacing of encounters. Sometimes a BBEG will find it easier to flee, lie, bribe, ambush, kite, or convince PCs to their own ends than fight to the death. Fleeing alone utterly destroys Single Encounter Day strategy because now you are in chase mode )exploration!) and possibly not even long enough for that. :smallbiggrin:

This empathy with the monster allows you to Rock, Paper, Scissors game the three pillars of Combat, Explore, Social. When a monster's Reaction (to the party), Routine, & Agenda are taken into consideration it shifts their Strategy & Tactics in the face of opposition. If PCs are very much "Kill 'em all, let the gods sort 'em out!" then have BBEGs (big bad evil guys) who learn of their reputation exploit it in a way that makes sense.

i.e. Perhaps the Hobgoblins find the PCs useful idiots to soften up a recluse wizard tower of patroling owlbears. A well-placed rumor (or lie) in town or amid travelers about said tower will be as dangerous as any ambush, let alone a tactical retreat, or wilderness resting harassment. Play BBEG as complex opponents, not as pretty set pieces for staged battles. :smallcool:

[Tanarii]

Perhaps you are counting encounters differently than I do. Discussion on these forums has revealed that what I consider one encounter sometimes counts as many, many encounters in the eyes of certain DMs.

So my question for you is: how do YOU partition 6 or so groups of monsters in a relatively small enclosed area to guarantee zero interactivity between them, yet guarantee that PCs will interact with every group? Because that's what it would take to make it 6 separate encounters in my book, and that's fairly implausible. 2-3 is much easier to imagine, as long as some of the monsters are loners like the garbage monster in Star Wars.Apparently I and the designers have a different idea of what counts as separate encounters. Nothing says they have to be guaranteed zero interactivity between them. Nor that an adventuring day has to cover a relatively small enclosed area.

Movies and books are a terrible basis for what an adventuring day typically looks like and still maintains verisimilitude or suspension of disbelief or realism or whatever catchword you want to use. It's wiser not to compare to them, nor design with them in mind.

[MaxWilson]

Apparently I and the designers have a different idea of what counts as separate encounters. Nothing says they have to be guaranteed zero interactivity between them. Nor that an adventuring day has to cover a relatively small enclosed area.

If it's not a small, enclosed area, then it's easy to create lots of potential encounters, but the pacing is back in the players' hands: you can't/shouldn't force them to encounter all the potential encounters in a 10-mile radius, especially if they're using things like Rope Trick and Leomund's Tiny Hut/Meld Into Stone/Pass Without Trace. Therefore you need to plan encounters which will be interesting even if players encounter them fully-rested, which puts us back where we started: looking for ways to make single encounters interesting (even if they turn out not to be single-encounter days), which is the subject of this thread, in addition to looking for ways to make a living world where time matters so that there are consequences to taking things slow, which is not the subject of this thread.


Movies and books are a terrible basis for what an adventuring day typically looks like and still maintains verisimilitude or suspension of disbelief or realism or whatever catchword you want to use. It's wiser not to compare to them, nor design with them in mind.

I agree. Movies and games are entirely different media when it comes to things like player agency and story structure. An author can get away with forcing Harry Dresden through the worst day in his life (multiple encounters stacked on top of each other) in ways that a DM should not count on, because the players might not play along. It is better to plan a game that works no matter whether the players take things fast or slow, and this thread is about players that take things slow.

[Segev]

Something I haven't yet done, but want to do, is adapt a concept I had for maze-based dungeon crawls to outdoor "dungeons" that are really collections of sites.

The concept started with the notion of a maze being something the PCs should have to solve, not something the players have to painstakingly walk through every time they want to move to another room. So I created what, in symbolic terms, would be called a graph. The graph has rooms roughly laid out in approximate relative positions to each other. Then the rooms' exits are linked to a "maze node."

The maze nodes are regions of the maze which have connections to particular rooms, and sometimes to other maze nodes. When characters explore a maze node without any idea where they're going, they have a table I roll on to determine which path out of the maze node they wind up taking. Each roll represents a particular amount of time exploring the maze node, and the table includes "still in the same maze node" type entries for those times PCs wind up wandering in circles.

When they've found a particular location, they can make Survival or Dungeoneering (whichever is more appropriate) rolls to trace a "known trail" successfully without being confused. The DC of the check is determined by the particular maze node they're in. Success means they spent one exploration time unit traveling and got where they're going; failure means they roll on the random table to see where they wound up, instead. Various techniques to improve navigation can give circumstance bonuses to the roll.



This can, I think, be adapted to make, say, a forest into an effective dungeon. Lay out the key locales within the forest in rough orientation, and then put "trackless forest nodes" in your graph that serves as a map of the forest. When characters leave a "room," they are in the 'trackless forest' and treat it like a maze node above.


This setup makes random encounters more interesting, too, because now random encounters serve to populate the maze nodes or the trackless forest.