D&D 5E Experience points are too fiddly for me.

[am181d]

This thread inspired me to poll my players last night. The consensus was that no one wanted to keep track of XP. (In fact, I found out that they were all making one of the guys keep track of XP for everybody.)

I'm giving out XP at the moment, because we're running Next and I'm trying to stick to the rules as written. I am looking forward to not doing this soon.

 

[Dausuul]

Here's an idea, which I admit is probably not going to find its way into D&DN at this stage (there's too much work invested in the current math) but would simplify everything dramatically:

Instead of XP value, just use level. Calibrate the power curve so that two level 5 creatures are roughly equal to a level 10 creature, three level 5s are equal to a level 15, and so on. To budget for an encounter, you just add up the party's total levels, then pick monsters whose combined levels add up to the same amount.

This would of course present some issues, particularly with advancement at the very low levels, since you'd have to double in power between levels 1 and 2. But a quick run of calculations suggests that it in fact makes for rather nice, consistent math. If you assume the base starting level is 3 or so, it could work quite nicely. (Then levels 1 and 2 can be for those who enjoy "zero-to-hero" gaming, while 3 assumes a base level of competence.)

 

[Libramarian]

What would you like instead?
What information would you need per monster to help eyeball difficulties?

Because I'm with you: XP budgets! Blech!

I hate XP budgeting because it implies that if the DM goes over budget by 1 point, they've broken the rules. I don't see any good reason to have exact budgets rather than a range of values. It implies that the system has a level of precision which it doesn't (and shouldn't).

But it is also fiddly. Most of the time I don't want this much freedom in encounter design, I just want a bunch of suitable monsters. So I would like lists of encounters by level, and preferably also by area/genre, that are mostly of average difficulty but include some easier and harder for variety.

I would like to say "system, give me some monsters for level 5 sylvan forest" and get 20 suitable encounters (say 10 average, 6 easy, 3 tough, 1 super tough/impossible), whether this is via 20 pages of lists in an appendix or a digital tool.

Here's an idea, which I admit is probably not going to find its way into D&DN at this stage (there's too much work invested in the current math) but would simplify everything dramatically:

Instead of XP value, just use level. Calibrate the power curve so that two level 5 creatures are roughly equal to a level 10 creature, three level 5s are equal to a level 15, and so on. To budget for an encounter, you just add up the party's total levels, then pick monsters whose combined levels add up to the same amount.

This would of course present some issues, particularly with advancement at the very low levels, since you'd have to double in power between levels 1 and 2. But a quick run of calculations suggests that it in fact makes for rather nice, consistent math. If you assume the base starting level is 3 or so, it could work quite nicely. (Then levels 1 and 2 can be for those who enjoy "zero-to-hero" gaming, while 3 assumes a base level of competence.)

This is a pretty obvious idea (not to say it's bad) so I'm almost certain that they have already considered and rejected it, probably for a good reason (power curve not dramatic enough).

 

[Ratskinner]

I hate XP budgeting because it implies that if the DM goes over budget by 1 point, they've broken the rules. I don't see any good reason to have exact budgets rather than a range of values. It implies that the system has a level of precision which it doesn't (and shouldn't).

But it is also fiddly. Most of the time I don't want this much freedom in encounter design, I just want a bunch of suitable monsters. So I would like lists of encounters by level, and preferably also by area/genre, that are mostly of average difficulty but include some easier and harder for variety.

I would like to say "system, give me some monsters for level 5 sylvan forest" and get 20 suitable encounters (say 10 average, 6 easy, 3 tough, 1 super tough/impossible), whether this is via 20 pages of lists in an appendix or a digital tool.

Totally on board with this, though I want it all on paper.

This is a pretty obvious idea (not to say it's bad) so I'm almost certain that they have already considered and rejected it, probably for a good reason (power curve not dramatic enough).

3e's CR originally had math like that, IIRC. It gets really fiddly and a lot of people find it hard to work with.

Personally, if they have to go through it using XP values...can't we just give up on the childish pretense that we can discern a viable difference between a 275 XP monster and a 300 XP monster? Just divide all the XP values by 100 or more and round 'em until most monsters have XP values between 1 and 100. Keeps the numbers smaller for most campaigns (under level 10) and makes all the math easier for budgeting.

 

[Lackhand]

Libramarian: thanks for the response! I'm not sure how that'd work for me, I think I'd need to see it in action. I accept that this may mean I'm relying too heavily on the illusion of specificity the current system(s) give me!

Ratskinner: I like the idea of coarser granularity experience numbers. I think at a certain point they become proportional to level; what would you think about just letting monster level have a fractional part? I know it's a bit weird, but it seems to me to capture exactly what we're after here!

 

[Ratskinner]

Ratskinner: I like the idea of coarser granularity experience numbers. I think at a certain point they become proportional to level; what would you think about just letting monster level have a fractional part? I know it's a bit weird, but it seems to me to capture exactly what we're after here!

I kinda feel like monsters should have both Level and XP, even if the level is only a "guideline" note. However, if the numbers work out for it, they could be the same. I wouldn't cry to see the XP table numbers loose a few powers of ten, either.

Hulk says "fractions bad" even decimals... If we need fractional XP values, then perhaps we should scale up the "unit" under consideration beyond just one monster. So, for instance. If one Goblin Warrior doesn't rate a full XP, maybe they come in packs of 2 or 3 that do. They wouldn't necessarily have to be all the same either. Maybe an Orc Warmaster is weak 4 XP threat, but he is a solid 5 when he brings his two Orc Thugs with him, especially since he has abilities that juice them up. Call them an Orc Warteam or something. Heck, a Kobold Battalion, might have 20 lousy individuals in it, but also have special "gang up" rules that make it a 10XP threat.

Generally though, if we're designing the monster from the start....why can't we just power him up or down to make the grade for a whole-number XP value? I just seriously doubt that any XP system will be soo amazingly accurate as to meaningfully differentiate between a 4.0 XP monster and a 4.2 XP monster. Surely the encounter or adventure design recommendations could include ranges. Some table or formula could inform the DM "A typical encounter for <type of party> will range between 25 and 30 XP worth of monsters. I guess I just don't see what's to be gained by fractional XP.

 

[Lackhand]

I kinda feel like monsters should have both Level and XP, even if the level is only a "guideline" note. However, if the numbers work out for it, they could be the same. I wouldn't cry to see the XP table numbers loose a few powers of ten, either.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious: Why?
It seems like XP is a measure of how difficult a monster is. So is level to me; I can't figure out how I'd use them differently. Is it the scaling properties of XP (giving us an automatic rule for how monsters of different level combine in an "approximate budget")?
Is the difference that you want to use level as a measure of the monster's "tier" or "magnitude", as distinct from its actual difficulty to take down in a fight, or something?

Because I don't get it

Hulk says "fractions bad" even decimals... If we need fractional XP values, then perhaps we should scale up the "unit" under consideration beyond just one monster.

I go back and forth on this myself!

An individual kobold is clearly not the equal of even a first level character; if you need 4 of them to be a "good challenge" for John Q Firstlevelfighter, then I have a hard time seeing that as anything other than a fractional level of 1/4.

Getting away from the clipping-error-near-0, we consider the difficulty between a level 10 monster and a level 10-and-one-half monster. There, I'm a lot more sympathetic to pleas of "guh. What the heck, man".

Previous editions had a chart of hit-dice-to-experience-points, with asterisks for added-difficulty-but-not-hit-dice.
I would kind of like that here; this is a level 10 monster, but due to its extra abilities and complexity, it gets an asterisk and _counts_ as two monster slots when you're setting up the encounter. It doesn't necessarily have higher hit points or attacks, though.
Anything not strong enough to earn that asterisk just doesn't get one, and gets cut down to fit in the box.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious: Why?
It seems like XP is a measure of how difficult a monster is. So is level to me; I can't figure out how I'd use them differently. Is it the scaling properties of XP (giving us an automatic rule for how monsters of different level combine in an "approximate budget")?
Is the difference that you want to use level as a measure of the monster's "tier" or "magnitude", as distinct from its actual difficulty to take down in a fight, or something?

Because I don't get it

Just because of the whole minion-standard-elite-dragon...err...solo thing. Some monsters are supposed to hold more weight in a fight than others...and that's a fight design thing that you want to have available at all levels. I'd be perfectly happy to drop the whole XP side of things entirely if the systems could be worked in such a way so that you could simply use the Level & Weight-Class designations without more than a few "You can swap a this for that." rules.

Bounded Accuracy is great and all, I suspect it will smooth out the distinctions between minion-standard-elite, just through HP totals etc. However, Boss-monsters like Dragons will still need to be different. "Leader" type monsters, even if not elite, might also need some special consideration. I just don't see how, even with BA, a 10th Level Dragon will be a good "boss" for 4th level PCs and a good "standard" for 10th level PCs and a good minion for 15th level PCs. His abilities will be too few and powerful to make a good climactic fight for the 4th level PCs, or too many and too weak to make a good minion for the 15th level fight.

I am willing to be surprised, though.

I go back and forth on this myself!

An individual kobold is clearly not the equal of even a first level character; if you need 4 of them to be a "good challenge" for John Q Firstlevelfighter, then I have a hard time seeing that as anything other than a fractional level of 1/4.
<snippage>

Why do you need to rate them individually then? I have a hard time seeing a situation where its useful to say "Aha! If I just add one more little kobold, then this encounter will be perfect." (Even if some encounter-building systems tempt you to do so.) If it takes 4 of them to give a Level 1 PC a good challenge, why would any less than a multiple of 4 ever appear? The monster listing could just say "Kobold Scouts" and note that there are 4 of them. If there's a need for an individual Kobold (for story purposes or whatever), he might be a good candidate for a higher level. Better yet, he might be a candidate for the old "0-level" designation.

What is gained by having fractional monster levels? Once you've answered that, you have to ask if that gain is worth the extra repeated overhead of dealing with the fractions at (at least) the start of virtually every campaign that is every played. It seems to me that noting "these monsters come 4 at a go" here and there is a lot easier than several paragraphs of math than need to be constantly recalculated.

 

[Libramarian]

Libramarian: thanks for the response! I'm not sure how that'd work for me, I think I'd need to see it in action. I accept that this may mean I'm relying too heavily on the illusion of specificity the current system(s) give me!

What I have in mind is just like:

         Easy Medium  Hard Insane
Level 1  <20   20-40  41-80  81+

That says to me "build the encounter and then check the chart to see what difficulty it's at. Revise if you like" which makes sense to me and fits with the text in the DM Guidelines packet which says the DM calls the shots designing the adventure.

Exact budget amounts say to me "here's what you're allowed to spend, go overbudget and the players are entitled to throw the book at you"

3e's CR originally had math like that, IIRC. It gets really fiddly and a lot of people find it hard to work with.

You definitely don't just add CRs together to get EL in 3e; in fact I think the reason 3e makes the distinction between CR and EL in the first place is to help disabuse people of this idea.

 

[Ratskinner]

You definitely don't just add CRs together to get EL in 3e; in fact I think the reason 3e makes the distinction between CR and EL in the first place is to help disabuse people of this idea.

I was referring to the bit where (IIRC) two critters of CR L-2 count as a critter of CR L (or something like that.) I built a pretty sophisticated spreadsheet to calculate and track it all for my first 3e campaign. A chart like you posted wouldn't bother me much, I don't think. 0f course, you might need a separate chart or notes for parties of different sizes.