D&D 5E Encounter XP # of Monster Multiplying

[Agamon]

So, I was checking what the encounters that it looks the party will come up against tonight for my game. This paragraph, from the DM Basic rules is worded slightly wrong, I think:

3. Adjust Encounter XP Value Based on the Number of Monsters. Based on the number of monsters in the encounter, multiply the encounter’s XP value by the matching multiplier from the Encounter XP Multipliers table. Thus, if you have an encounter with 4 monsters in it, multiply the total XP value of the encounter by 2 for the purposes of determining how difficult the encounter is. This doesn’t change the actual XP award the adventurers receive for overcoming the monsters, just your calculations of how difficult the encounter is.

By the wording, you multiply the xp of the entire encounter according to how many creatures are in the entire encounter. That's fine if all the monsters are the same, but it's a bit messed up if you have different monsters in the same encounter.

For example, a CR 3 (700 xp) creature is an average encounter for 4 3rd level PCs. Add 2 CR 0 (10 xp) creatures, and it becomes deadly (1440 xp). That's absurd.

So I think the intention is that you multiply each group of different creatures in the encounter, and then add that together after to get the actual difficulty of the encounter. So above, we have 700 + (10 x2 x1.5) = 730 xp.

That sound right to everyone else?

 

[Savage Wombat]

No, I don't think that's right. I think your analysis of the problem is spot on, but the solution doesn't really work. Adding an orc to a goblin and a kobold wouldn't be significantly less dangerous than three goblins. There does need to be some factor of how much the lesser creatures are contributing relative to the greater.

OTOH, that may make the math unnecessarily hard.

 

[Agamon]

No, I don't think that's right. I think your analysis of the problem is spot on, but the solution doesn't really work. Adding an orc to a goblin and a kobold wouldn't be significantly less dangerous than three goblins. There does need to be some factor of how much the lesser creatures are contributing relative to the greater.

OTOH, that may make the math unnecessarily hard.

Perhaps adding similar CR groups together would work better?

All I know is, I have one encounter with a werewolf and a bunch of bandits and another with an awakened tree and some awakened bushes. And this method doesn't work for judging these encounters.

The "math" might seem complex, but it's fairly easy to eyeball. It's just a guideline to begin with anyway.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That rule also means the "level 2 after the first day of adventuring" thing doesn't actually work. A 1st-level character's daily budget is 300, which is how much it takes to get to level 2. But if those encounters have multiple monsters, they're "worth" 300 XP, but the player actually gets less than that.

This rule doesn't make any sense to me, and I hope they fix it by the time the DMG comes out.

 

[SigmaOne]

Of all the rules I've seen, this by far is the one that seems to need the most work. I get what they're trying to do, but as this thread illustrates, it's far from clear that it accomplishes the design goal, and if it does, it's far from clear how it does. Also, philosophically, it makes no sense to me that you'd bump the XP for determining difficulty without actually bumping XP earned... since XP earned is supposed to be a reflection of difficulty. I too really hope we see some clarifications. It may just be that the multipliers are off.. but then could they be made better without making the math tedious?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Just a thought, but perhaps this rule is only intended to judge encounters made up of creatures with a CR 1 or higher? 975 xp doesn't seem outrageous for encountering a bugbear and an ogre at the same time.

I also found it strange that the players get the unmodified xp value. I think the reasoning might be that the designers don't want to discourage smart play. If the players are clever enough to separate a group of creatures, they get the same xp for the two easier encounters as they would for the single, more difficult one. If they didn't, they'd arguably be encouraged to fight the creatures as one encounter (because xp tends to be a fairly good motivator for player behavior). I do, however, think that a better approach would be to always reward the multiplied value, even if the players successfully divide and conquer. Perhaps there will be multiple options in the DMG.

 

[Tony Semana]

I agree it feels a little clunky, though I think for the most part I'll always be using this after the fact.

The modification I've been using to this method is setting threshold number between 'Pair' and 'Group' the number of PCs in the party:

Number of Monsters	XP Multiplier
Single Monster	-
Party Outnumbers (2 to [#PCs - 1])	x1.5
Group (#PCs to 6)	x2.0

 

[Pseudopsyche]

One related question is how should we interpret fractional CR? Maybe 4 goblins (CR 1/4) should be treated exactly as a single CR 1 monster, including for purposes of the scaling factor. Kind of like in 3E, where you had to combine fractional CR monsters into a CR 1 monster before the exponential math kicked in.

 

[MerricB]

One related question is how should we interpret fractional CR? Maybe 4 goblins (CR 1/4) should be treated exactly as a single CR 1 monster, including for purposes of the scaling factor. Kind of like in 3E, where you had to combine fractional CR monsters into a CR 1 monster before the exponential math kicked in.

I'd be very wary of doing that. Kobolds outnumbering the group can really cause trouble.

Cheers!

 

[keterys]

I think the real answer is that you largely ignore the rule; just keep it a little bit in the back corner of your mind when you're talking about a lot lot of things. The basic concept is fine - "If a creature has a mechanic that scales better with allies, don't throw too much at the PCs", but the execution "Don't even bother to check if it has such mechanics, or what you're using, just start doubling and quadrupling xp all over the place" leaves a lot to be desired.