D&D 5E L&L for 7/7

[Giltonio_Santos]

I see a lot of comments in the article saying "4E was better". I always thought that 4E used XP budget for encounters, how does it change in 5E?

 

[Wolfskin]

I see a lot of comments in the article saying "4E was better". I always thought that 4E used XP budget for encounters, how does it change in 5E?

My understanding is that many 4e fans consider "guidelines" to mean "GM can do whatever they want", so encounter-building rules are inherently better to them than encounter-building guidelines. It's mostly a semantics thing.

 

[Quickleaf]

I see a lot of comments in the article saying "4E was better". I always thought that 4E used XP budget for encounters, how does it change in 5E?

In 5e, there are two considerations that require further manipulating the XP numbers:
1) fighting monsters of higher level ("challenge") than the PCs
2) being outnumbered 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1 by monsters

Because of the amount of damage monsters deal relative to the characters' HP & because of the force multiplier of large groups of monsters, these circumstances require you multiply the total XP value of the monsters by a factor greater than 1 in order to get their actual XP value for determining how challenging they will be for your party.

So fighting off the horde of low-level humanoids is only possible at higher levels, and facing an ogre at 1st level risks death or TPK.

I think this is what people are saying is "worse than 4e." Of course, 4e has minions which are worth less XP than they give & very unbounded accuracy. Personally, I think the 5e method works just fine and may even like it better once I play with it

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My understanding is that many 4e fans consider "guidelines" to mean "GM can do whatever they want", so encounter-building rules are inherently better to them than encounter-building guidelines. It's mostly a semantics thing.

"Your understanding", eh? No, that's not a common feeling at all, that I've seen. Do you understand that they were also encounter-building guidelines in 4E, too?

So, no, it isn't a "semantics thing". It has nothing to do with "guidelines". That is a semantics thing, but it's your semantics thing, not that of "4E fans".

It has to do with different approaches.

4E focused on building encounters which used monsters in a variety of different roles, and had different categories of monsters that acted in different ways (minion through solo), with a total XP budget. So if you wanted to, you could follow the guidelines and create encounters which were very reliably. You could also recalibrate them for different parties. For example - no Controller in the PC party? Probably go light on Minions and Swarms.

The result was that you had a very tight and reliable encounter-building system. You could tell what the likely result would be - wanted an encounter to be Hard? It would be Hard, etc.

5E has a looser system - no roles, no specific categories (though I think "Legendaries" will be like Solos iirc), just "You must be this tall" CR and a total XP budget.

I dunno if 4E's was better, but the difference isn't "semantics".

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like 5E Encounter Building Guidelines. Its a good mix of 3E Challenge rating and 4E XP Budget!

 

[Thaumaturge]

As a rule of thumb, the game assumes that characters of a particular level can defeat a total number of creatures with an XP value equal to two hard encounters before needing to take a long rest

(emphasis mine)

I believe that Mearls is using "hard" and "challenging" interchangeably here.

I disagree. The XP chart has different categories for "hard" and "challenging". Using them as synonyms in the text describing the chart would be confusing at a minimum.

Thaumaturge.

 

[MerricB]

I see a lot of comments in the article saying "4E was better". I always thought that 4E used XP budget for encounters, how does it change in 5E?

4E doesn't use an unqualified XP budget as such. Instead, it rates monsters as Solo, Elite, Normal or Minion, as well as giving them a level.

It's quite accurate for gauging the difficulty of a challenge. Each normal monster will fight one PC; an elite is 2 PCs, a Solo is 5 PCs, and 4-6 minions make up 1 PC. Level indicates the relative difficulty. By the XP budget, it might be fine to put a level 20 normal monster against a 7th level party, but because of the level disparity, it isn't fair.

I think the intention of 5E is that the XP budget replaces the Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion descriptors, while CR replaces the level of a monster. We'll see how it works in practice when we see more of the monsters!

Cheers!

 

[77IM]

I see a lot of comments in the article saying "4E was better". I always thought that 4E used XP budget for encounters, how does it change in 5E?

In 4e, a standard monster of your level was a fair challenge for a single PC. This made it much easier to eyeball encounters. You have 5 PCs who are level 8? Just throw 5 level 8 monsters at them.

Of course you could vary it a bit -- 4 level 6 monsters and a level 9 elite (counts as 2 monsters)? Probably doable, as that's close to 5x8. The point is, you didn't have to add up XP values until after the monsters were defeated, which means you didn't ever have to do it if the party skipped that encounter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Morrus;

I like 5E Encounter Building Guidelines. Its a good mix of 3E Challenge rating and 4E XP Budget!

Despite the terminology, no part of 5E's encounter building functions like 3E's CR. So there's no "mix" of it there beyond the name. It's basically just 4E with the categories (both role and type) removed and the "you must be this tall" made more explicit.

In 4e, a standard monster of your level was a fair challenge for a single PC. This made it much easier to eyeball encounters. You have 5 PCs who are level 8? Just throw 5 level 8 monsters at them.

Of course you could vary it a bit -- 4 level 6 monsters and a level 9 elite (counts as 2 monsters)? Probably doable, as that's close to 5x8. The point is, you didn't have to add up XP values until after the monsters were defeated, which means you didn't ever have to do it if the party skipped that encounter.

Er, that may be how you ran it, and that's cool, but 4E absolutely does use XP budgets RAW.

 

[Wolfskin]

So, no, it isn't a "semantics thing". It has nothing to do with "guidelines". That is a semantics thing, but it's your semantics thing, not that of "4E fans".

Is there an insult to call someone a 4e fan? What's so terrible about it?

I know several people who define themselves as such, who incidentally swear 5e is a return to the "fantasy vietnam" playstyle in which GMs kill PCs for the lulz because it enforces "rulings, not rules".

Didn't mean to generalize, though.