D&D 5E Why do we award Encounter XP instead of Adjusted XP?

[KarinsDad]

The Encounter XP for the goblins is actually lower than the Githyanki, 350 vs. 700.

That's my problem: the PCs are being awarded less XP for fighting an encounter that's supposed to be equally challenging.

It's not equaling challenging with regard to how much damage and resources the party uses. The 5 foes will do more damage and require more resources to take out. The 1 foe will do a lot of damage to one or two PCs, but will be gang tackled and taken out fairly quick because of action economy, 5 turns vs. 1 turn.

One single target spell can end or nearly end the fight against the single foe.

 

[Gecko85]

Back to the original question, you did calculate the goblin XP incorrectly, though. Goblins are 50xp each, so the adjusted XP is 500 - a medium difficulty for four 2nd level PCs. The Githyanki is hard difficulty, hence more XP.

 

[Athinar]

But if you are the DM you can do what ever you want; you can award the "encounter difficulty" Exp if you wish; I don't but I do award Story and extra's

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's not equaling challenging with regard to how much damage and resources the party uses. The 5 foes will do more damage and require more resources to take out. The 1 foe will do a lot of damage to one or two PCs, but will be gang tackled and taken out fairly quick because of action economy, 5 turns vs. 1 turn.

One single target spell can end or nearly end the fight against the single foe.

Conversely, a single fireball can render a group of enemies dead before they can act, potentially irrespective of whether they make their saving throw (since half of 8d6 can easily wipe out goblins and other low CR creatures).

 

[KarinsDad]

Conversely, a single fireball can render a group of enemies dead before they can act, potentially irrespective of whether they make their saving throw (since half of 8d6 can easily wipe out goblins and other low CR creatures).

True that.

But there are a small limited number of PC area effect spells per day (and targeting is sometimes an issue), there are a large finite number of melee/ranged gang tackle the solo attacks. This is why solo creatures are often given area attacks or more than a single attack per round, to equalize action economy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

True that.

But there are a small limited number of PC area effect spells per day (and targeting is sometimes an issue), there are a large finite number of melee/ranged gang tackle the solo attacks. This is why solo creatures are often given area attacks or more than a single attack per round, to equalize action economy.

Granted. However, a solo creature will often have better saving throws as well as other mitigating abilities (up to and including legendary resistance). In addition, you have to consider that a groups effectiveness will drop rapidly due to attrition. A solo, on the other hand, will be hitting just as hard on his last round and his first (not counting limited use abilities or the exception of swarms).

From what I've seen at the table, the deadliest encounters are often a group of 2 to 4 moderately powerful creatures. A solo creature, as you say, can get overwhelmed even though the immediate damage usually gives the players pause. A large group can be scary on round one, but often devolves into a mop up job thanks to AoEs and general attrition. A small group of reasonably strong creatures forces the party to split resources (or risk having one character get ganged up on), often has the defenses to endure, and has enough offense to put a serious hurt on them.

 

[KarinsDad]

Granted. However, a solo creature will often have better saving throws as well as other mitigating abilities (up to and including legendary resistance). In addition, you have to consider that a groups effectiveness will drop rapidly due to attrition. A solo, on the other hand, will be hitting just as hard on his last round and his first (not counting limited use abilities or the exception of swarms).

From what I've seen at the table, the deadliest encounters are often a group of 2 to 4 moderately powerful creatures. A solo creature, as you say, can get overwhelmed even though the immediate damage usually gives the players pause. A large group can be scary on round one, but often devolves into a mop up job thanks to AoEs and general attrition. A small group of reasonably strong creatures forces the party to split resources (or risk having one character get ganged up on), often has the defenses to endure, and has enough offense to put a serious hurt on them.

Yup. My 5E experiences as well.

Interestingly enough, my 4E experience is different than my 5E experience. Nearly all fights in 4E (except possibly solos) were ones of multiple PCs getting bloodied or even unconscious until a tipping point was reached where the healing allowed action economy to shift into the favor of the PCs. NPCs tended to fire off their big guns early, so a lot of PCs often took an initial volley of damage which was then healed (usually if the PC got bloodied). That does not often happen in 5E. If a PC gets damaged in 5E (at least IME), they tend to stay that way until the battle is over (or until they go unconscious at which point someone might heal them in combat). Healing was extremely common in 4E combat to the point that it was happening every 2nd or 3rd round at least. It tends to be a lot less common in 5E combat, often not happening at all in an entire encounter. At least at our table.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Edit: Completely mistaken about some rule, so nothing to see here.

 

[Delandel]

While I can't say with certainty, I believe it's intended to shape how players approach encounters.

Say you have 10 orcs in a room, and that this would be a deadly encounter for the given party. They have the option to kick in the door and fight the orcs head on. However, if they're clever, they might employ a ruse to lure some of the orcs out of the room. Now the party will face two easier encounters, but they still get the same xp as if they kicked in the door. IMO, it's intended to encourage "smart" play.

On the other hand, if you award adjusted XP, the party that kicks in the door earns more xp than the "smart" party. There is an argument to be made that this approach is fine, since the first party earns more xp while the second party gets to conserve resources. IME, however, players will follow the xp unless they have an overwhelming reason to do otherwise (such as if the group of 10 orcs is an almost guaranteed TPK).

One possible solution would be to simply award the adjusted XP to either party. You would have to figure out what to do in the event that an encounter shifts outside of its defined parameters though (an orc runs for help and 5 more orcs show up on round 4; do you readjust the xp to account for the new orcs or treat them as a second encounter or ...?). This will also increase the rate at which the party levels, which is something else to consider.

That's something I hadn't considered. Very interesting. Thank you for that!

If this was the intent, which sounds plausible to me, I can understand it but disagree with it. I feel like the problem of being awarded less XP for multiple creatures of equal challenge is more common and higher priority than what if the PCs divided the encounter into smaller chunks, so the rule should address the first issue as a priority. If the PCs used clever tactics to separate a combat encounter into easier chunks I'd award them the adjusted XP for the entire thing.

The PCs would definitely be leveling faster than intended, assuming the XP system was built with this intent. But at the same time, you could also say that if you followed the rules and gave the PCs less foes (1-2) as encounters then they'd be leveling up faster than intended too? It's weird.

Ok, looking up the encounter rules and whatnot, I think you have it backwards. For 5 goblins, the un-adjusted encounter XP is 5x50=250. Since there are multiple monsters, you use a multiplier (in this case x2), so the adjusted XP becomes 500. You use the adjusted 500 XP, right?

5 goblins 1 hobgoblin = 700. You forgot the hobgoblin

Nope. You use adjusted XP to determine how hard the fight is, but the actual PC-earned reward is unadjusted XP.

This sort of thing--and other bookkeeping--is one of the reasons I've been giving solely story-based XP since 2E.

I don't bother with tracking XP either when I DM. But I'm writing an adventure module where this matters. I'll follow the official ruling but I don't like it!

It's not equaling challenging with regard to how much damage and resources the party uses. The 5 foes will do more damage and require more resources to take out. The 1 foe will do a lot of damage to one or two PCs, but will be gang tackled and taken out fairly quick because of action economy, 5 turns vs. 1 turn.

One single target spell can end or nearly end the fight against the single foe.

I mean, a group vs. a single foe of equal challenge XP will have their ups and downs. I agree, unless the PCs get some good AOE down, the first scenario is probably more difficult. But the point is that the 5 goblins 1 hobgoblin awards 350 XP and the 1 githyanki awards 700, even though they're both Adjusted XP 700, supposedly equal challenge.

 

[Syntallah]

But if you are the DM you can do what ever you want; you can award the "encounter difficulty" Exp if you wish; I don't but I do award Story and extra's

I award the average of the actual and adjusted values. Very easy to do since I use Excel spreadsheets for EL calculating and experience...