D&D 5E D&D Basic DM rules updated

[Tormyr]

Everyone always acts like all the monsters are neatly bundled up into one tidy little 15-foot square. Such is almost never the case in encounters I design.

True that, but unless effort is put in to make the skeletons contribute in a meaningful way, they are still inconsequential to the encounter.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The thing that bothers me about it is exactly that: 1 powerful creature and a horde of weaklings. If you fought the horde individually, you should still multiply the XP for evaluation of difficulty. But if you stick them with a much more powerful creature, suddenly they matter less? The skeletons shouldn't cause the lich to be multiplied, but shouldn't they still multiply themselves?

What makes sense to me in that case is that you simply treat the lich and the 12 skeletons as separate encounters for XP purposes. Multiply the skeleton XP, then add the unmodified lich XP to see how tough it should be.

You don't actually get the mutiplyed xp. That is just for determining difficulty. The skeletons should not affect the modifier because they are too weak at the point you are fighting a Lich that even large numbers of them don't really effect the battle that much.

 

[Henrix]

I find myself reading this discussion and the only thing I feel is that I hope there's some sensible discussion about alternatives to XP for blood in the DMG.

XP that have nothing to do with how much blood you spill. XP for reaching your goals, not for what you kill on the way.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I find myself reading this discussion and the only thing I feel is that I hope there's some sensible discussion about alternatives to XP for blood in the DMG.

XP that have nothing to do with how much blood you spill. XP for reaching your goals, not for what you kill on the way.

You don't get XP for blood. You get Xp for overcoming challenges. If you force the monster to run away, give up or knock it out. You get the same xp as if you killed it. You are supposed to get XP for getting around Traps as well. (That will be in the DMG for sure.) It's not uncommon for parties to get quest xp for when they complete a quest or job.

Tyranny of Dragons has what your talking about as a alternate way of leveling up. Instead of tracking xp you get a level whenever you complete an episode or certain event in the storyline.

 

[Henrix]

You get Xp for overcoming challenges.

Well, not really, you get XP for defeating monsters. Actually spilling their blood or metaphorically. So, the expression goes, XP for blood (as opposed to, say, XP for gold).

Challenges can be a lot of other interesting stuff, like getting the king to acknowledge you as the new baron of Breakwater*.

Getting XP for defeating monsters that do not bring you closer to your goals is weird. The more you loiter the more experience you get, thanks to the random monsters wandering around.

But giving XP for achieving goals, that's the ticket.


(As for the method as it is used in Tyranny, I don't know. It feels like getting XP for passing a train station. )




* DM: No XP for that, but if you kill the king you'll get enough to level twice.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Well, not really, you get XP for defeating monsters. Actually spilling their blood or metaphorically. So, the expression goes, XP for blood (as opposed to, say, XP for gold).

Challenges can be a lot of other interesting stuff, like getting the king to acknowledge you as the new baron of Breakwater*.

Getting XP for defeating monsters that do not bring you closer to your goals is weird. The more you loiter the more experience you get, thanks to the random monsters wandering around.

But giving XP for achieving goals, that's the ticket.


(As for the method as it is used in Tyranny, I don't know. It feels like getting XP for passing a train station. )




* DM: No XP for that, but if you kill the king you'll get enough to level twice.

Which is why quest exp is a thing. Also you get xp for traps. So no it's not just monsters.

 

[Henrix]

Which is why quest exp is a thing. Also you get xp for traps. So no it's not hust monsters.

So far I've not seen a system including XP for blood to be, in the end, XP for blood and a little fraction extra thrown in.*

Come to think about it, it's just like the fixed prices for magic items.

As soon as it has a price/XP listed it becomes something the rules say, something the players have a right to expect.
That means that killing (or defeating) that monster (or overcoming that trap) should give you 100 XP.
And if the monsters give the XP listed you can't hand out much more XP, because then the PCs will level too fast**.


So, in the end, best scrap the XP for killing monsters entirely.

Hand it out for getting to the marrow. For attending a session.



* I've seen attempts in AD&D1 and forward, to 4e and PF, but in the end it has turned out that way.
I'm certain it has been combined successfully in some campaigns, but not as a rule.

** Without enough blood on their hands?


[But enough of that here and now, it is quite beside this thread.]

 

[Jhaelen]

Tyranny of Dragons has what your talking about as a alternate way of leveling up. Instead of tracking xp you get a level whenever you complete an episode or certain event in the storyline.

Good to know that option is still officially endorsed. When I started to DM D&D 4e I stopped tracking xp, although my players still wanted to know how much xp an encounter was worth. They gained a level whenever they completed an adventure (or adventure arc).

IIRC Star Wars Saga had a rule where a more than 5 or 8 level difference between monster and PC resulted in the monster's XP value being downgraded by 1/10.

D&D 3.5 also had such a rule: for 8 or more levels difference you would gain _no_ xp! Interestingly this was also true if a party managed to defeat a monster that was 8 levels _higher_ than the party, the reasoning being that something must clearly be amiss if they managed such a feat...

 

[Joe Liker]

You don't actually get the mutiplyed xp. That is just for determining difficulty. The skeletons should not affect the modifier because they are too weak at the point you are fighting a Lich that even large numbers of them don't really effect the battle that much.

If you are using an action to kill one or more skeletons rather than damaging the lich, the skeletons have made a significant impact.

5e encounters are short and deadly. Every action counts. Even if the minions are just soaking up a player action or two, they have contributed enough to warrant their share in the XP budget (which is relatively tiny, compared to the lich's share).

 

[Wolfskin]

If you are using an action to kill one or more skeletons rather than damaging the lich, the skeletons have made a significant impact.

5e encounters are short and deadly. Every action counts. Even if the minions are just soaking up a player action or two, they have contributed enough to warrant their share in the XP budget (which is relatively tiny, compared to the lich's share).

This.

IME, even though I didn't run high level encounters yet, combats in 5e rarely last more than 10 rounds- and more often than often are finished by the fifth round or so. Mooks, even purely HP-bags style of mooks who just exist to be damaged, mean the PCs have to choose between wasting them or concentrate fire on the big bad. And since ranged attacks, including ranged spell attacks, have disadvantage when an enemy is within 5' of you, even relatively harmless mooks make things way more difficult to most casters/range combatants.