There have been a lot of threads about combat encounters, and I get a sense of dissatisfaction, but that might just be a case of the squeaky wheel effect. So, I'm curious what people actually favor.
I feel like all but the last question are circumstantially dependent. How many encounters between rests depends very much on the size of the encounters, and thr size of the encounters should vary. Sometimes there should be a couple of massive ones, other times dozens of minor ones. Same with the number of rounds. Although I can be a bit more specific - perhaps 4-5 for mooks, then maybe 10 for the boss fight. The last one, assuming you mean BBEG fight or at least a boss fight - it should feel like a real struggle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I personally aim to have at least one combat encounter per three hours of gameplay. Sometimes more or less if the narrative demands - if they’re dungeon crawling, that number is likely going up; if they’re in a city, that number might go down. That doesn’t necessarily correlate to short or long rests, and the same party might do two long rests in a session, or no long rests for several sessions in a row, with that decision driving the combat encounters per rest metric.
As with most things in D&D, I think the secret is to just keep your finger on the pulse of the campaign and do what is necessary for the present circumstances both in-game and with the players themselves.
As with most things in D&D, I think the secret is to just keep your finger on the pulse of the campaign and do what is necessary for the present circumstances both in-game and with the players themselves.
For clarity, I wasn't asking how you actually run things, I was asking what people like. In terms of actual game mechanics, it's hard to exceed 3-4 rounds without homebrew, waves of monsters, or mythic monsters.
As with most things in D&D, I think the secret is to just keep your finger on the pulse of the campaign and do what is necessary for the present circumstances both in-game and with the players themselves.
For clarity, I wasn't asking how you actually run things, I was asking what people like. In terms of actual game mechanics, it's hard to exceed 3-4 rounds without homebrew, waves of monsters, or mythic monsters.
Which is the answer given - the DM should keep their finger on the pulse of the campaign and ensure everyone is having a good time. That includes homeruling or just increasing monster HP, since Wizards did a pretty terrible job with monster design this edition.
I noted how I do it because that’s what folks like at my table; other tables will be vastly different.
All I really care about is whether the encounters are appropriate for the story. I also like variety.
If the session consists of a dungeon crawl, then there are likely to be half a dozen short encounters. Each encounter will typically be an ambush of some kind, so it's more about being coordinated.
If the session is urban espionage, then there is a decent chance of having 2~3 moderate encounters. Anyone worth stealing from can probably pose a threat, or hire support who do.
If the session is a trophy hunt, then there is likely to be just one long encounter.
Some characters require "charging up", so if the average encounter is less than 4 rounds, the player may never get a chance to do their "thing". However if the party isn't quick to execute their turns, anything more than 3 rounds can feel like a slog.
TL;DR
My preference is to put the story first, with the option to pursue challenges to suit my cravings.
If players are complaining about combat length, then the issue probably isn't the combat itself.
I would agree with some here that the encounters that are had should fall in-line with what the Party/PCs are doing. The difficulty of the encounter will also, to some degree, determine its length. I prefer providing encounters that fit what is happening in the environment the party is in.
A confined space with a high concentration of creatures, like dungeon delving, will most likely have numerous, small, quick and easy encounters. The PCs may want to prevent the whole dungeon from crashing down on them in one massive encounter, should one of their opponents make an escape or sound an alarm call. Several easy to moderate encounters can be taken up in a 3-4 hour session.
Seeking out a singular large/dangerous foe will most likely lead to a couple of moderate combat encounters, followed by the very deadly setpiece encounter. This will most likely take up the majority of a 3-4 hour gaming session.
Most scenarios can be constructed to run in either fashion. It comes down to what the party enjoys. Neither is impossible to impliment or conduct, contrary to some claims, but their practicality will depend on the player's enjoyment and the DM's willingness to fulfill their players wants.
Players wanting more, or deadlier, combat encounters might be more of a sign that they don't relate to the exploration or social encounters that are provided. If any are provided at all. If the "squeeky-wheel" is coming from DMs being unsatified with their own combat encounters, I can only recommend using whatever feedback might be gleaned from the players and work from there. Asking for feedback from your customers is considered good practice is some circles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I say it varies. Definitely more than one should be the norm, otherwise you get your full casters "going nova" on that single fight and short rest classes feel underpowered, plus it tends to take away from any kind of sense of danger unless you're making it so hard as to seriously threaten a TPK every time and if so it will eventually happen unless you're regularly fudging stuff (which means poor encounter design). Depending on how you're pacing your game it can be anything between 2 or three and 4-6 combats; those "easier" combats get a lot more challenging and feel more dangerous when your casters are almost out of spells and everybody has rolled most or all of their hit dice and still aren't back up to max health going in. And don't forget that an "encounter" or "challenge" can be non-combat; anything that uses resources counts. This can be traps that deal damage, obstacles that casters use spells to bypass, social encounters that casters might use enchantment or illusion spells on to avoid getting into a fight, and so forth. Balancing becomes trickier as you have more of those encounters, so you may well end up needing to make some tweaks along the way like having that "boss monster" be backed up by a few more or less weaker minions than initially planned if the party either had extraordinary good or bad rolls in a few of the easier fights building up to it.
You should also reserve the big climactic "boss fight" battles for situations where the party is either aware they're going to have to face such a challenge eventually and thus conserve resources in other fights (which also adds suspense and a feel of uncertainty as they try to use just enough of their expendable spells or other abilities to get through without being too hurt to proceed), or hit them early if you're catching them by surprise with a big battle they weren't expecting. In the latter case you can tack on a few "minor" encounters as they try to get to saftey after using a bunch of resources on the big fight.
My preference changes based on whether I'm a player or a DM.
I run intrigue campaigns where combat is rare - and extremely cinematic and important when it happens. I frequently have my players go 15-20 hours of gameplay without combat, and then hit them with a combat-heavy dungeon for three weeks in a row. As a storyteller, I prefer battles to be narratively significant.
When I play, I like more frequent combat - 1-2 fights per long rest on average, maybe 3 if it's a dungeon. I'm not a combat junkie, though, and don't tend to enjoy dungeon crawl adventures or hack'n'slash. Even as a player, I want there to be periods of time when long rests pass without combat. Exploration and social encounters are just as fun to me.
Given the practical impossibility of running 6-8 encounters in a day, I have only 2-3, and they are deadly. I am not doing my job as a DM if a char is not on the verge of death.
I’m not really a fan of combat, because it takes forever. I’m fine with it when it is during a long session, like a 4 hour session, rather than a 2 hour session, where it takes the entire session to complete it.
I prefer a smaller number of encounters in a day but making them more interesting, challenging and impactful. I'm not as interested in fighting a dozen or so battles that are steamrolled through individually in a day, for me that would just be a slog.
I’m not really a fan of combat, because it takes forever. I’m fine with it when it is during a long session, like a 4 hour session, rather than a 2 hour session, where it takes the entire session to complete it.
It's the main part of D&D, like 95% of the game rules are about combat. There are probably other better TTRPG systems for you out there if you don't enjoy the combat element. Inevitably, being a turn based system with multiple players, it just has to take a bunch of time.
I’m not really a fan of combat, because it takes forever. I’m fine with it when it is during a long session, like a 4 hour session, rather than a 2 hour session, where it takes the entire session to complete it.
It's the main part of D&D, like 95% of the game rules are about combat. There are probably other better TTRPG systems for you out there if you don't enjoy the combat element. Inevitably, being a turn based system with multiple players, it just has to take a bunch of time.
It’s more of I think it shouldnt take the entire session to finish, and the DM has you do it every session.
I’m not really a fan of combat, because it takes forever. I’m fine with it when it is during a long session, like a 4 hour session, rather than a 2 hour session, where it takes the entire session to complete it.
It's the main part of D&D, like 95% of the game rules are about combat. There are probably other better TTRPG systems for you out there if you don't enjoy the combat element. Inevitably, being a turn based system with multiple players, it just has to take a bunch of time.
It’s more of I think it shouldnt take the entire session to finish, and the DM has you do it every session.
How long is "a session"? There should be other bits to D&D. Combat is main reason to use 5e, it's true, but meat has to have gravy. I'm curious why combat is taking an entire session, though. We have only short sessions, perhaps an hour and a half to two hours, but we'll have at least some roleplay and multiple (albeit short) combats. I've never had a single encounter last an entire session - even when we've had short sessions even by our standards. Something isn't adding up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It’s more of I think it shouldnt take the entire session to finish, and the DM has you do it every session.
The fact that you have (per your prior post) 2 hour sessions probably makes you an outlier here. It might be interesting to ask what people's mean session length is, but I suspect for most groups it's more than two hours.
I’m not really a fan of combat, because it takes forever. I’m fine with it when it is during a long session, like a 4 hour session, rather than a 2 hour session, where it takes the entire session to complete it.
It's the main part of D&D, like 95% of the game rules are about combat. There are probably other better TTRPG systems for you out there if you don't enjoy the combat element. Inevitably, being a turn based system with multiple players, it just has to take a bunch of time.
It’s more of I think it shouldnt take the entire session to finish, and the DM has you do it every session.
How long is "a session"? There should be other bits to D&D. Combat is main reason to use 5e, it's true, but meat has to have gravy. I'm curious why combat is taking an entire session, though. We have only short sessions, perhaps an hour and a half to two hours, but we'll have at least some roleplay and multiple (albeit short) combats. I've never had a single encounter last an entire session - even when we've had short sessions even by our standards. Something isn't adding up.
Probably because every combat encounter is deadly. That either means there's a ton of monsters, which takes forever to resolve, or the monsters are really strong, which means everyone has to make their decisions perfectly or die, which takes forever to resolve.
Four level threes against 3 merrows, had to end it early, by having one have a heart attack. Plus, underwater combat and no one has a swim speed, and the fact that all my attacks were electric, along with having used up practically everything.
Something I've seen three GMs do in their streams is use Travel as a Long Rest. Those three DMs are varied in their encounters. One is death-defying, and any encounter could be someone's last. Another is easy-peasy for roleplay fun. The last is in the middle of the two—risk is obvious but there is a mixed level of confidence and fear among the players.
I enjoy all three streams for their varied styles on their own merits each.
What the table wants is what matters most to me, but the catch is that the players at the table don't always know what they want (or think they know what they want but actually want something else), and it's up to the GM to figure out the right level for the table at hand.
The trend I've noticed is that players from older editions like more risk and players from 5e initially prefer the levels of risk they've seen in streams—and most streams intend for longevity over risk of losing characters, but as trends go, that's not always the case. EDIT: ...and initially is the keyword in the latter. From there, it can go in any direction as players get familiar with things.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I prefer a smaller number of encounters in a day but making them more interesting, challenging and impactful. I'm not as interested in fighting a dozen or so battles that are steamrolled through individually in a day, for me that would just be a slog.
Certainly encounters should be interesting, challenging, and impactful. The reason to have 4 or more is to balance the short rest classes with the long rest ones. Short resting after every fight is too good for warlocks, monks, and fighters, but a 2 or 3-encounter day with no short rest leaves them underperforming versus their teammates. Class balance was built around the adventuring day.
Of course sometimes you need conflict but it doesn't make sense to have several encounters that day. I've been messing around with the idea that a "true" long rest has requirements you can't meet with just a bedroll. So if you travel for a week to get somewhere, that whole week might be effectively one adventuring day. Then you can sprinkle in a few traveling encounters without the party absolutely unloading a full day's resources in their one random encounter for the day.
It's certainly a pain to work out, but I think if PC balance is important to you then it's worth the effort to figure out a way to have adventuring days that match 5e's expectations.
There have been a lot of threads about combat encounters, and I get a sense of dissatisfaction, but that might just be a case of the squeaky wheel effect. So, I'm curious what people actually favor.
I feel like all but the last question are circumstantially dependent. How many encounters between rests depends very much on the size of the encounters, and thr size of the encounters should vary. Sometimes there should be a couple of massive ones, other times dozens of minor ones. Same with the number of rounds. Although I can be a bit more specific - perhaps 4-5 for mooks, then maybe 10 for the boss fight. The last one, assuming you mean BBEG fight or at least a boss fight - it should feel like a real struggle.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I personally aim to have at least one combat encounter per three hours of gameplay. Sometimes more or less if the narrative demands - if they’re dungeon crawling, that number is likely going up; if they’re in a city, that number might go down. That doesn’t necessarily correlate to short or long rests, and the same party might do two long rests in a session, or no long rests for several sessions in a row, with that decision driving the combat encounters per rest metric.
As with most things in D&D, I think the secret is to just keep your finger on the pulse of the campaign and do what is necessary for the present circumstances both in-game and with the players themselves.
For clarity, I wasn't asking how you actually run things, I was asking what people like. In terms of actual game mechanics, it's hard to exceed 3-4 rounds without homebrew, waves of monsters, or mythic monsters.
Which is the answer given - the DM should keep their finger on the pulse of the campaign and ensure everyone is having a good time. That includes homeruling or just increasing monster HP, since Wizards did a pretty terrible job with monster design this edition.
I noted how I do it because that’s what folks like at my table; other tables will be vastly different.
All I really care about is whether the encounters are appropriate for the story. I also like variety.
If the session consists of a dungeon crawl, then there are likely to be half a dozen short encounters. Each encounter will typically be an ambush of some kind, so it's more about being coordinated.
If the session is urban espionage, then there is a decent chance of having 2~3 moderate encounters. Anyone worth stealing from can probably pose a threat, or hire support who do.
If the session is a trophy hunt, then there is likely to be just one long encounter.
Some characters require "charging up", so if the average encounter is less than 4 rounds, the player may never get a chance to do their "thing". However if the party isn't quick to execute their turns, anything more than 3 rounds can feel like a slog.
TL;DR
My preference is to put the story first, with the option to pursue challenges to suit my cravings.
If players are complaining about combat length, then the issue probably isn't the combat itself.
I would agree with some here that the encounters that are had should fall in-line with what the Party/PCs are doing. The difficulty of the encounter will also, to some degree, determine its length. I prefer providing encounters that fit what is happening in the environment the party is in.
A confined space with a high concentration of creatures, like dungeon delving, will most likely have numerous, small, quick and easy encounters. The PCs may want to prevent the whole dungeon from crashing down on them in one massive encounter, should one of their opponents make an escape or sound an alarm call. Several easy to moderate encounters can be taken up in a 3-4 hour session.
Seeking out a singular large/dangerous foe will most likely lead to a couple of moderate combat encounters, followed by the very deadly setpiece encounter. This will most likely take up the majority of a 3-4 hour gaming session.
Most scenarios can be constructed to run in either fashion. It comes down to what the party enjoys. Neither is impossible to impliment or conduct, contrary to some claims, but their practicality will depend on the player's enjoyment and the DM's willingness to fulfill their players wants.
Players wanting more, or deadlier, combat encounters might be more of a sign that they don't relate to the exploration or social encounters that are provided. If any are provided at all. If the "squeeky-wheel" is coming from DMs being unsatified with their own combat encounters, I can only recommend using whatever feedback might be gleaned from the players and work from there. Asking for feedback from your customers is considered good practice is some circles.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I say it varies. Definitely more than one should be the norm, otherwise you get your full casters "going nova" on that single fight and short rest classes feel underpowered, plus it tends to take away from any kind of sense of danger unless you're making it so hard as to seriously threaten a TPK every time and if so it will eventually happen unless you're regularly fudging stuff (which means poor encounter design). Depending on how you're pacing your game it can be anything between 2 or three and 4-6 combats; those "easier" combats get a lot more challenging and feel more dangerous when your casters are almost out of spells and everybody has rolled most or all of their hit dice and still aren't back up to max health going in. And don't forget that an "encounter" or "challenge" can be non-combat; anything that uses resources counts. This can be traps that deal damage, obstacles that casters use spells to bypass, social encounters that casters might use enchantment or illusion spells on to avoid getting into a fight, and so forth. Balancing becomes trickier as you have more of those encounters, so you may well end up needing to make some tweaks along the way like having that "boss monster" be backed up by a few more or less weaker minions than initially planned if the party either had extraordinary good or bad rolls in a few of the easier fights building up to it.
You should also reserve the big climactic "boss fight" battles for situations where the party is either aware they're going to have to face such a challenge eventually and thus conserve resources in other fights (which also adds suspense and a feel of uncertainty as they try to use just enough of their expendable spells or other abilities to get through without being too hurt to proceed), or hit them early if you're catching them by surprise with a big battle they weren't expecting. In the latter case you can tack on a few "minor" encounters as they try to get to saftey after using a bunch of resources on the big fight.
My preference changes based on whether I'm a player or a DM.
I run intrigue campaigns where combat is rare - and extremely cinematic and important when it happens. I frequently have my players go 15-20 hours of gameplay without combat, and then hit them with a combat-heavy dungeon for three weeks in a row. As a storyteller, I prefer battles to be narratively significant.
When I play, I like more frequent combat - 1-2 fights per long rest on average, maybe 3 if it's a dungeon. I'm not a combat junkie, though, and don't tend to enjoy dungeon crawl adventures or hack'n'slash. Even as a player, I want there to be periods of time when long rests pass without combat. Exploration and social encounters are just as fun to me.
Consider redefining the length of a day.
I’m not really a fan of combat, because it takes forever. I’m fine with it when it is during a long session, like a 4 hour session, rather than a 2 hour session, where it takes the entire session to complete it.
It pronounced Den Sake. It is not Japanese.
Website character sheet not working fix (Hopefully)
Semi-Expert at homebrew, just ask for my help.
I prefer a smaller number of encounters in a day but making them more interesting, challenging and impactful. I'm not as interested in fighting a dozen or so battles that are steamrolled through individually in a day, for me that would just be a slog.
It's the main part of D&D, like 95% of the game rules are about combat. There are probably other better TTRPG systems for you out there if you don't enjoy the combat element. Inevitably, being a turn based system with multiple players, it just has to take a bunch of time.
It’s more of I think it shouldnt take the entire session to finish, and the DM has you do it every session.
It pronounced Den Sake. It is not Japanese.
Website character sheet not working fix (Hopefully)
Semi-Expert at homebrew, just ask for my help.
How long is "a session"? There should be other bits to D&D. Combat is main reason to use 5e, it's true, but meat has to have gravy. I'm curious why combat is taking an entire session, though. We have only short sessions, perhaps an hour and a half to two hours, but we'll have at least some roleplay and multiple (albeit short) combats. I've never had a single encounter last an entire session - even when we've had short sessions even by our standards. Something isn't adding up.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The fact that you have (per your prior post) 2 hour sessions probably makes you an outlier here. It might be interesting to ask what people's mean session length is, but I suspect for most groups it's more than two hours.
Probably because every combat encounter is deadly. That either means there's a ton of monsters, which takes forever to resolve, or the monsters are really strong, which means everyone has to make their decisions perfectly or die, which takes forever to resolve.
Four level threes against 3 merrows, had to end it early, by having one have a heart attack. Plus, underwater combat and no one has a swim speed, and the fact that all my attacks were electric, along with having used up practically everything.
It pronounced Den Sake. It is not Japanese.
Website character sheet not working fix (Hopefully)
Semi-Expert at homebrew, just ask for my help.
I'm with the "It's situational," crowd. 🙃
Something I've seen three GMs do in their streams is use Travel as a Long Rest. Those three DMs are varied in their encounters. One is death-defying, and any encounter could be someone's last. Another is easy-peasy for roleplay fun. The last is in the middle of the two—risk is obvious but there is a mixed level of confidence and fear among the players.
I enjoy all three streams for their varied styles on their own merits each.
What the table wants is what matters most to me, but the catch is that the players at the table don't always know what they want (or think they know what they want but actually want something else), and it's up to the GM to figure out the right level for the table at hand.
The trend I've noticed is that players from older editions like more risk and players from 5e initially prefer the levels of risk they've seen in streams—and most streams intend for longevity over risk of losing characters, but as trends go, that's not always the case. EDIT: ...and initially is the keyword in the latter. From there, it can go in any direction as players get familiar with things.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Certainly encounters should be interesting, challenging, and impactful. The reason to have 4 or more is to balance the short rest classes with the long rest ones. Short resting after every fight is too good for warlocks, monks, and fighters, but a 2 or 3-encounter day with no short rest leaves them underperforming versus their teammates. Class balance was built around the adventuring day.
Of course sometimes you need conflict but it doesn't make sense to have several encounters that day. I've been messing around with the idea that a "true" long rest has requirements you can't meet with just a bedroll. So if you travel for a week to get somewhere, that whole week might be effectively one adventuring day. Then you can sprinkle in a few traveling encounters without the party absolutely unloading a full day's resources in their one random encounter for the day.
It's certainly a pain to work out, but I think if PC balance is important to you then it's worth the effort to figure out a way to have adventuring days that match 5e's expectations.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm