Can someone explain to me why D&D 5th editiom was designed for 6-8 encounters EVERY DAY...

Can someone explain to me why D&D 5th editiom was designed for 6-8 encounters EVERY DAY? Is it even possible to run that much combat without it turning into a borefest? Why do the published adventures contain so many trash combats that even the very creators of the game remove them when they play?

Other urls found in this thread:

d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Encounters =/= combat.

because most people who play it play it for combat, hence "murderhobos"

Two main reasons.

1. DnD is not a roleplaying game. It's a dungeon-crawler with it's roots in a wargame. Trying to pretend it's good for ANYTHING besides combat is fucking delusion/investment fallacy by people who don't want to admit DnD sucks because it's all they know and they're scared to play anything better.

2. Multiple encounters are necessary to stop casters from shitting all over the game because the ways in which they can manipulate reality and the number of cheat codes they have is literally unstoppable past mid level unless you can burn out their spell slots.

1. That's a no true scotsman fallacy... If it isn't an RPG then what is? Disregarding the fact that there are a lot of RPGs that have copied D&D in some way.

2. If there were less encounters casters could be given less shit

Are you literally retarded? user literally answered it for you.

>It's a dungeon-crawler with it's roots in a wargame

Also, a bunch of games also copied Call of Duty, that doesn't make them good.

Dungeon-crawling isn't combat. OSR is awesome for dungeon-crawling, but awful for combat.
Last I checked d20 System is awful for both.

Because they went back to vancian slot-based system for magic, and you need that many encounters for "daily" classes to be on par with "encounter" or "at-will" classes.

I'd shill how 4e just used encounter-based powers so you could always fight at your peak and not need a bunch of useless attrition-encounters to make the game challenging...

But DnD's fanbase is too stupid to function and would rather play Pathfinder than a good game, so now we got a 5th edition thats a step backwards in every respect.

Fuck, I hate this hobby sometimes.

1) 6-8 encounters every "adventuring day."
2) "encounter" is defined as anything that uses party resources, not just combat.

Being a contrarian troll is against the rules, and as much as you're hoping to pretend you're not, you lying this badly and being this far removed from the truth really puts you clearly in the shitposter category.

How the fuck do you think you can even get away with posting shit like
>DnD is not a roleplaying game.

And still have the balls to pretend you're not a retarded troll?

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or even the same person.

You could have just been a normal person, blown off the comments you thought were "trolling" and gotten on with your life. Instead you decided to throw down and defend your system of choice to the death on an anonymous image board. Good job calling everyone else retarded though.

Man, shut the fuck up.
Quit trying to defend blatant trolling like you've got skin in the game.

osr games have shit cbat. What's great though is the turn system and tracking out of combat time. It makes encumbrance, lighting, torch time, mapping, random encounters and checking traps all lock into each other in a well designed exploration based game. That's really how you make dungeon crawls work.

>Not liking the thing I worship is "blatant trolling".
Please stop. I like DnD, but you're the reason people around here think we're one of the worst groups on Veeky Forums. We don't need a defense squad to enjoy our game.

Shhh, don't let him know there are entire topics devoted to this sort of thing.

Man, shut the fuck up.
Quit trying to defend blatant trolling like you've got skin in the game.

Also, you're not as subtle or as clever as you imagine yourself to be. Any more obvious, and you wouldn't need a trip.

Aww user
Did someone hurt your feelings about wargame of pretend?

Quick, take a screenshot of all the replies he thinks are you, because you're obviously a me and also a samefag.

>tracking out of combat time.
I'm not familiar with OSR games. Do they do something radically different from just tracking time by the hour?

>DnD is not a roleplaying game

Not only are you wrong, you are actually the most wrong you could possibly be, since D&D is in fact the FIRST roleplaying game, unless you count cops & robbers or something.

>Trying to pretend it's good for ANYTHING besides combat is fucking delusion/investment fallacy

I have never seen anyone successfully justify this point. Hell, they usually don't even try, they just repeat themselves over and over. "d20 sucks at negotiations!" "How?" "Just trust me, it does!" "Can you give an example?" "No, I don't have to, because it sucks so hard, oh my god, I'm so seriously right now!"

The mechanics of D&D have allowed me to roleplay tons of different ideas and encounters, from combat to trapfinding negotiation to thievery to studying to intrigue and anything else you care to suggest.

I've run games that were pure combat and games where nary a sword was drawn, and the mechanics of D&D helped me run both without any need for homebrewing. At most I made use of some optional rules that were printed in the DMG of the edition I was using.

Now then. For the purposes of this discussion and to keep things concise we're going to stick to 5th Edition with this, as it's the edition I'm currently playing and have the most easy access to and current familiarity with.

Having a conversation based entirely on a single D20 pass/fail roll with less than a half a page devoted to how to use the skill means the system isn't good for it. Compare that to 70% of the 300 pages being about combat mechanics.

At this point I know you're just baiting to get more replies to be angry at though. Not sure why I'm actually taking the bait, but there's your actual factual answer.

>I have never seen anyone successfully justify this point.
d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm

God, that picture infuriates me.
Min-maxing has absolutely nothing to do with HOW you solve an encounter, it's sacrificing as much as possible during chargen to buff your character as much as possible in certain areas.

A min-maxed fighter could kick way more ass than a noob-built wizard.

>getting upset about a stale troll image

Just ignore him.

Someone here can't read. Or has a bad case of premature posting. Either way, really.

I'm not baiting, I'm being serious. And the above post was my first in this thread. Not sure how to prove that, though.

>Having a conversation based entirely on a single D20 pass/fail roll

That doesn't really happen in 5e, though. You'll make a Persuasion or Deception check to see if you can pass off (or fail at) specific things within a conversation, but you won't usually make a single check for an entire conversation if it's in any way important (you might for something like "don't shoot!" or to try and negotiate the price of an item down, but that should really only be a single check anyway since there's a singular thing you're trying to get done and presumably don't need to trade life stories with the person you're talking to).

Even still, negotiation is really just one thing that you can do in a roleplaying game. Combat is another, and yes, I'll grant that D&D heavily favors combat because of its history. But my objection is that it's ONLY good at that.

Let's look at 12 common scenarios in D&D campaigns. These situations were used to devise the Tier system of 3rd Edition precisely because they come up a lot.

>1. Talking to a noble about your reward
>2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
>3. A hostage negotiation
>4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
>5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
>6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
>7. Finding a hidden enemy base
>8. Killing a horde of enemies
>9. Disabling someone without killing him
>10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
>11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
>12. Stealing an item, undetected.

So 4, 8, and 10 inevitably involve combat, of course. But can you demonstrate how and why 5e D&D is terrible at the remainder? Like, NOTABLY terrible?

rollplayer detected, opinion discarded

>contarian troll-kun visibly upset after getting absolutely refuted
>can't even make half a compelling argument in response

I almost feel pity for you. But, nah, you're just a dumb cunt.

Those are all just rules you made up though, not part of the system itself.

you track turns instead. They're technically 10 minutes long but abstracted. Pretty much any discrete actionis a turn and a turn advances when all playets have taken an action. So say, a torch last 6 turns, you move 240 a turn if mapping, faster if running or not mapping, slower if sneaking, etc. The key fifference is that every time is divisible by 10 minute turns, etc
That's why say preparing spells has a time based on amount of spells. You can leave "slots" unfilled so you can prepare spells in the dungeon but time use brings a random encounter chance since you check random encounters every second turn.

What rules did I make up?

>Instantly tripping a humanoid beats a dragon encounter
???

The dragon is a stand-in for any type of encounter, not a literal dragon.

Why choose a stand in that is unaffected by most of your examples?

I didn't make the image, I couldn't tell you.

I find it kind of funny that “using up party resources” often directly correlates to “makes the casters use some spells”. And maybe have everyone else lose a few hit points/dice

>Being a contrarian troll is against the rules
No it isn't. /a/, /v/, /co/ and /tv/ would all be dead as absolute shit if it was. I mean not getting into the other ridiculous assumptions of your post it is 100% in the rules.

>3. You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

It's not heavily enforced, but trolling is still against the rules. Whodathunk?

It isn't enforced at all. Remember a few months ago when someone posted those caster vs martial threads with no other serious purpose then to start shit? That's clearly trolling by any standard, and it went completely unchecked.

I remember when there was at least a solid year of
>the feats in whatever edition are incredibly diverse and fun
With a picture of a bunch of D&D feats. It got 50+ replies every day for a year. Exact same picture each time too. I don't understand what sort of brain defect makes people see a troll and think
>I must give the troll what he wants, ie attention, and maybe once I have appease him sufficiently he won't do the same exact fucking thing tomorrow, but if he does I'll just give more attention

Everything you just said about diplomacy.

If you show a troll the logical inconsistencies of his argument he can't use it anymore. If he still keeps using it it means he didn't understand you, which is why you need to repeat your explanation to him.

>If you show a troll the logical inconsistencies of his argument he can't use it anymore

Oh god, no, no. What? No. Fuck no.

No.

Half of what a troll does is ignore logic, just so you have to explain everything to him repeatedly. There are some trolls still digging up debunked myths from over a decade ago, purely because they know they can still get a reaction because from initial appearance they can produce a lot of bullshit to support themselves. It takes forever to cut them down to size, and then they just "forget" everything you explained and start the cycle all over again.

The only thing to do with trolls is ignore them and report them. We're never going to live in a troll-less age, so it makes no sense to bother debating with them. All you can do is try to discourage them by calling them out, dismissing them, and then actually discussing things with people who aren't in it just for a reaction or to further some agenda.

1. Out and out false, if you need mechanics to roleplay you're not a good roleplayer.
2. That's sort of a point?

I think what I hate the most is the fact that the way that they designed 5E is that one way or another, someone's getting shafted. Say your party has a Wizard, a Warlock, a Champion Fighter and a Rogue. The wizard wants to go home and call it a day after he blows his load, the warlock wants an entire hour of rest between fighters to get his 2 spells back, and the fighter and rogue just want to finish shit and make money.

Unifying classes around a shared [At-Will], [Encounter], and [Daily] pool of powers worked so much better to actually letting shit just play out organically without putting classes in one of three tracks. And letting Encounter powers come back for each encounter (which a clarification that about a 5-minute breather or so between fights counts, and it's basically just considered any new dramatic scene) rather than requiring a 1-hour period of non-strenuous rest just works so much better.

It was designed for 6-8 *maximum*. This is how many medium to hard encounters that the party can take on before they are almost guaranteed to be completely dry and shooting dust.

Encounters are not just combat, they are simply anything that can expend resources. When you consider that, hitting 6 isn't hard. A few traps, a puzzle, some tough social interaction, and a couple combat encounters and you're good. And some classes (short rest classes and those that are largely focused on at-will abilities like the rogue) can keep going even past that.

>And maybe have everyone else lose a few hit points/dice
This is mostly a sticking point in 3.PF actually. Unless you're abusing Wands of Cure Light Wounds, any day going on long enough to make the Wizard risk running out of spells after level..5 or so, the Fighter is going to be fucking dead from HP damage.

Replace Wizard and Fighter with your spellcasting and noncasting class of choice and it stays true for the most part.

>Bluh bluh d&d is bad and I know it but have invested too much time and money into it so I have to delude myself into thinking I like crap. Please PLEASE don't say anything that would burst my unreality bubble and force me to acknowledge what I know deep down in my heart

Because the designers for D&D 5e are bad at their jobs.

Greetings fellow human being, how is your first day on the internet?

>trap, puzzle, social interaction
Please explain how these are supposed to use up resources AT ALL.

Hard mode: no wizards.

It's even worse, because there's not much correlation between how much you rest and your power.

E.G. The party does a short rest, the fighter gets back his shitty second wind and action surges, while the warlock has his encounter-changing spells back, and the wizard regains some of his mojo. The party does a long rest, and the fighter ans the warlock basically get nothing worthwile while the wizard is God again.

>"I want to throw a handful of sand at the opponents face"
>OSR answer: "Okay, the enemy is blinded for a round"
>Pathfinder answer "Roll for CMB and take attack of opportunity since you don't have Improved Dirty Trick" *the roll is 10 and you fail since almost all monster have such inflated CMD that you only have a reasonable chance of succeeding on a combat maneuver if you're specializing in it*

Obviously you can improvise with either of these systems, but one of them rewards you for it(unless you have a particularly restrictive GM) and the other tends to punish you for it(unless your GM is willing to ignore the rules when convenient, which is NOT a mindset Pathfinder encourages)

>you lying this badly
More like slight hyperbole.

I have ruled the same as using a breath style cone with a range of 5', reflex save v blindness with a DC based on BAB+dex mod.

>Its about rulings not rules
Cheap excuse which actually means "build your own system".

The problem is that such things not only are more complicated than OSR's approach, but they may react adversely to the rest of the system by either rendering useless or being rendered useless by class features.

OSR is the simple but reliable AK47, and +3e is the M16A1, with so many moving parts that even a little dirt will jam it.

That's absolutely not what it means you mong. All role-playing requires some degree of arbitration because no strictures written in a book will ever perfectly capture what you want out of a game at a given time.

Any system that you can provide as a counter to this is built in with arbitration.

The world you describe sounds like a paradise.

Your talking out your ass. Their is no specifics in the PHB about when and where to make most skill checks. This is left up to the DM, as is most of 5th ed.

>Please explain how these are supposed to use up resources AT ALL.

The fighter/rogue/whatever noncaster encounters a Trap, fails, takes damage (e.g. uses up a resource). They then take a short rest or drink a potion or etc. to hail that (e.g., using up a resource).

This isn't exactly rocket science user. Traps & puzzles have literally been around since day 1 of the game.

Why though? If you're going to arbitrate and make rulings on the fly, why play a system that already has a bunch of cumbersome rules for what you're arbitrating? Especially one where the balance is based on those rules?

There's acres of flat ground for you to build your house, but you're building it on top of another house.

>I find it funny that “use up resources” means using up all limited resources the party has access to.

>Having a conversation based entirely on a single D20 pass/fail roll

What does this have to do with the D&D 5e system? Isn't this entirely the DM's responsibility in setting up social encounters? Couldn't you make conversations a single dice roll in any RPG system you wanted, or conversely, many die rolls and roleplaying?

The party doesn't have access to those spells, the mage does. They can choose when to spend those slots but they're not obligated to spend them healing the party if they feel as though it would be better spent elsewhere.

This!

People expect the mage to give up a limited resource just because they acted fucking stupid and got themselves hurt. You'd think that martials would be less reckless when they know that the mage can only afford to pop a heal spell a limited number of times per day.

So this squad of half a dozen shitposters who piss and moan in every D&D thread are just crippled with autism? You can do a multi-phase encounter with as many or as few rolls as you want, no step-by-step rules required. A player is probably being uncreative if they're rolling all the time, or the DM isn't even trying to be engaging.

There's always rules you are building on. What makes it harder to improvise with an OSR fighter than with a 5e Champion? Is it harder to improvise as a Wizard/Cleric/Thief in either edition, since you have more rules?

Congratulations, you are playing the one edition where improvised actions are "don't even try" tier.

Yeah that's a maximum number, I never had any problem with 2-3 per day, but that means you have to take the time to create encounters that need stategy, and won't let the caster solve it with one spell. Or you know...hordes of mooks if you are uninspired.