D&D 5E XP Multiplier

[CydKnight]

What a curious game. The only way to win is not to play.

The best approach is to award a level at milestones and not waste time calculating XP for advancing, but instead use it only as a limited guide during encounter creation.

I give a level at each milestone. A milestone occurs roughly once every three sessions (although levels 1 and 2 are faster and the highest levels stretch longer. A milestone occurs in a natural break from adventuring (completion of a dungeon, etc...)

I've used this system in 5 different decades. It has never failed me and I've never second guessed it. Calculating xp per creature as a reward is a waste of time and provides no real benefit that a generalization can't afford.

What do you do when life inevitably occurs and you have a player miss a session while the rest of the party is present? Does the player still level up at milestone like the rest? This could create feelings of unfairness for those that do attend every session. Maybe you don't have players miss sessions or do not hold the session if all players can't be present?

I can appreciate and even envy that it has worked for you for 5 decades but I don't see it working at mine. At one time or another everyone in the party has missed at least one session over the past year but some have missed more than others. I cannot justify to the players why everyone would level up at milestones when some may have missed multiple sessions during that part of the campaign while others didn't miss any.

 

[CapnZapp]

Noone in my group have the slightest problem with everyone being the same level even when one player misses a session.

In fact, having PCs be different levels would be highly undesirable for them.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Difficulty isn't a static thing - it increases or decreases based on the choices of the players and, to some extent, luck. I imagine it would be difficult to ascertain an appropriate XP award based on this. So what we have is a rough estimate of difficulty using the XP system, but the PCs get the XP for the monster rather than for the challenge. That being said, there's probably no issue with using the adjusted XP value for your XP awards. It'll likely mean, on average, faster advancement for your PCs.

As for the comments about experience points in general, I recommend using XP to reward the behaviors you want to see in your players. As an incentive, this works really well in my experience. The way it is traditionally awarded means your players will tend to attack monsters rather than avoid or parlay with them, provided the players are interested in level advancement. This can be offset with awarding XP for non-combat challenges. Milestone XP awarded for completing quests or chapters means players will tend to follow the plot points you've set up. I change up how I award XP all the time, based on what kind of campaign I'm running. I can imagine a campaign like the video game Gauntlet, where the PCs fight hordes of monsters in a dungeon, would be a candidate for using the adjusted XP values for awards. This would incentivize the players to find the biggest groups of monsters they can find and annihilate them - which sounds like fun!

 

[Maxperson]

If I used combat XP I would certainly use the multiplier. Logic dictates that if the difficulty has increased then so too must the experience have.

Unfortunately I just use quest xp exclusively, as it makes my party less murder-hobo-y. Which is of the good.

My group is too old school for me to be able to get rid of combat xp. I solved the murder hobo issue by awarding significant xp for puzzle solving and roleplay. One good night of solid roleplay will get them as much xp as a night with 2-3 fights. They no longer feel compelled to get into fights to level up.

 

[jgsugden]

What do you do when life inevitably occurs and you have a player miss a session while the rest of the party is present? Does the player still level up at milestone like the rest? This could create feelings of unfairness for those that do attend every session. Maybe you don't have players miss sessions or do not hold the session if all players can't be present?

Players miss sessions. We either NPC the character or they PC is sidelined with personal business. Either way, yes, they advance with the party.

I can appreciate and even envy that it has worked for you for 5 decades but I don't see it working at mine.

In 5 decades, not for 5 decades. The game and I are not quite that old yet... quite.

At one time or another everyone in the party has missed at least one session over the past year but some have missed more than others. I cannot justify to the players why everyone would level up at milestones when some may have missed multiple sessions during that part of the campaign while others didn't miss any.

You might be surprised. I've played in more games than I've run, and many followed the experience point system in the books. Those systems created more ill will than my system by far. It resulted in less feelings of 'rewarded for being there' than you describe and more feelings of 'punished for having real responsibilities outside the game'. Further, when PCs fall behind in power relative to other characters, it becomes harder for them to contribute equally to the story. The game is more fun when all PCs are theoretically equal in power.

This is not to say that I've never had a player enter my gaming world that objected to my system. I've had my share of transports from other games that were used to the pay for play models and raised the same concerns you have. Their concerns were usually raised only for the first few sessions and then disappeared. I can think of only one player that persisted with his preference for book experience models. He was a complete optimizer, was upset whenever he was not the star of an adventure and had anger issues relating to the number one. I admit I did not take his concerns to heart and he cited the rule amongst his reasons to rage quit the game, with an overturned table, a hole in my drywall and theft of some of my minis on his way out the door. This is not to say everyone that prefers the original recipe XP is a monster, but I did see a direct connection between his need to be the bestesterest and his preference for that system.

 

[iserith]

You might be surprised. I've played in more games than I've run, and many followed the experience point system in the books. Those systems created more ill will than my system by far. It resulted in less feelings of 'rewarded for being there' than you describe and more feelings of 'punished for having real responsibilities outside the game'. Further, when PCs fall behind in power relative to other characters, it becomes harder for them to contribute equally to the story. The game is more fun when all PCs are theoretically equal in power.

I don't really care how folks handle character advancement in their games, but I can't understand why some folks say not getting experience points is a "punishment for having real responsibilities outside the game." That's a really negative way of thinking about it in my view. Entitled even. Experience points are a reward for participation and doing the things to which experience points are pegged, not a punishment for not participating. Sheesh. There are plenty of reasons to prefer one reward and advancement system over another, but I just can't agree with folks who think that way.

Further, I've played all my D&D 5e campaigns with characters of varying levels. It has not changed in any meaningful way the ability of characters to contribute equally. And that differential was up to 6 levels. All it really means in practice is that you take your licks for a session and then you very quickly advance because you're getting an equal share of the XP for harder challenges than a party of a level equal to yours can normally take on.

 

[akr71]

In a different thread two people wanted to "correct" a calculation of awarded xp of mine, by pointing out the xp multiplier from the table in the DMG on page 82. Then others chimed in, pointing out that those multipliers were only for calculating encounter difficulty, not for awarding xp. That evoked two questions in me:

1. How many people are using that multiplier for awarded xp?
2. And wouldn't that actually be the better way?

If we say that 6 goblins in a pack are twice as difficult than 6 single goblins in a row, wouldn't it be only logical to give more xp for the harder encounter?

When I first started DM'ing 5e I used that multiplier table too when awarding XP before someone pointed out to me that it was meant for determining encounter difficulty, not XP awards. Are 6 goblins at once tougher than 6 single ones? Sure. Are 6 at once as tough as one CR 3 (700XP)? Probably not.

I find that Encounter Multiplier table clumsy and misleading. I get what it is trying to show, but using XP to calculate CR feels like an apples to oranges thing. Would you not get the same approximation from adding CRs together?

Example - 6 Golbins CR 1/4 (50XP)
XP awarded
6 x 50 = 300XP

Encounter Difficulty
6 x 50 x 2 = 600XP

or

6 creatures of CR 1/4 = 6 x 1/4 = CR 1.5 which feels about right
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just my 2CP, your experiences may differ.

 

[Xeviat]

I don't give out XP, but I tend to calculate when to level up based on the XP multiplier's XP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To throw another wrinkle in here, the encounter design rules say don't calculate xp for monsters that don't pose a challenge. So 20-30 goblins vs level 10 PCs can be excluded from your encounter difficulty xp calculations.

...AFB, but I'm reasonably certain that the rules merely say not to count trivial monsters toward the XP multiplier. You still count their XP though.

Also, 30 goblins are a nontrivial challenge for four 10th level PCs anyway. That's way more aggregate HP and DPR than a Hydra, plus the goblins have bonus action hide, Stealth expertise, and a ranged attack. Those 30 goblins might very well be the toughest fight of the evening, if they are played with a reasonable amount of cunning, e.g. avoiding "Fireball formation" where a single AoE can take them all out simultaneously.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't really care how folks handle character advancement in their games, but I can't understand why some folks say not getting experience points is a "punishment for having real responsibilities outside the game." That's a really negative way of thinking about it in my view. Entitled even. Experience points are a reward for participation and doing the things to which experience points are pegged, not a punishment for not participating. Sheesh. There are plenty of reasons to prefer one reward and advancement system over another, but I just can't agree with folks who think that way.

That is your perogative. Based upon my experience, the frustration with being a second tier PC is common, and it is seen in people that don't exhibit 'entitled' behaviors.

Further, I've played all my D&D 5e campaigns with characters of varying levels. It has not changed in any meaningful way the ability of characters to contribute equally. And that differential was up to 6 levels. All it really means in practice is that you take your licks for a session and then you very quickly advance because you're getting an equal share of the XP for harder challenges than a party of a level equal to yours can normally take on.

There are a lot of ways for that to play out. A common one, for example, would be for the lower level PC to die when facing a reasonable challenge for the higher level allies. I've seen players run through several PCs before one survived long enough to be relatively durable. Alternatively, they might hide or be relegated to dealing with lower power minions of the big bad monsters until they level up. Neither approach is as much fun as being a significant player throughout the session.

It sounds like you have tried the approach I suggest, but I have tried both approaches with significant experience in 'both'. I stand by my assessment. Obvioudly, it is a somewhat subjective issue, but I think the vast majority of games are better suited by the ease, balance and equity of milestone advancement.