D&D 5E Can Anybody Make Sense of New XP values?

[Quickleaf]

So the new playtest packet gave us encounter XP budgets that I thought I'd try out. I started by looking at the dark cultists. And... the weakest of the set (dark acolyte) is worth the most XP?

I figure this has to be a typo, so I looked at other monsters to try to figure out if the acolyte is too high or the others are too low, but the monster other XP values are so inconsistent that I can't make heads or tails of them.

Anybody got if figured out?

No, I don't understand the maths behind the XP valuation, but I can make an observation. A level 1 creature like the goblin deals an average of 6.5 damage (and is worth 120 XP), whereas a centipede or kobold deals about 1 damage on average (and is worth 70 XP). So whether the creature is a striker (to use the 4e term) or not seems to have some bearing on a monsters XP value.

But then you look at a human commoner who has 4 hit points versus the goblin's 3, and deals 2.5 average damage versus the goblin's 1.5......and somehow the human commoner is worth only 50 XP compared to the goblin's 70 XP. Weird. Not that I'd expect players to go around killing peasants, but I agree that the XP system appears to be more art than science at this stage.

 

[Argyle King]

a serious question...

Was the Facebook game with its focus on the adventuring day a preview of how 5th Edition's model is intended to work?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like the idea of a range of xp per level.

Monster A and B are both level 3
Monster a is a brute with a two handed weapon that does lots of damage has a mid ground AC and good hp
Monster b is a mystic with lots of weird little effects and aoe a high AC low hp and damage

 

[GameDoc]

Can someone explain to me why the xp values can't just be simpler? I mean, I know I can use simple arithmetic for xp budgets and players leveling, etc, but why can't a Level 1 creature reward 100 xp, and a Level 2 creature reward 200 xp and a Level 3 creature reward 300 xp? Elite would be double, Solo would be Quintupled.

If a player is Level 1 they have 0 xp
Getting to Level 2 requires, let's say they have to overcome 10 threats of their level, so 1,000 xp.
Getting to Level 3 requires, let's say 10 threats of their level, so 2,000 xp.

Why can't it be as simple as this? I'm just spitballing here with advancement thresholds, but why can't xp values for threats just be simpler? What's up with a L1 Centipede giving 70 xp and a L1 Goblin giving 120 xp?? If they're both the same level, doesn't level equal threat? And why can't it just be 100 xp for Level *1*?

I thought this was a particular strength of the way 4e approached XP. The scale was not what you're describing, but it was the same paradigm and it made encounter design easier.

Incidentally, they pretty much ported in the encounter design/XP budget concept from 4e into the play test. I whipped up a kobold lair using the guidelines and reskinned a dark acolyte as their shaman. The party annihilated them without breaking a sweat, even though the guidelines in the play test should have made a couple of the encounters "difficult" based on monster level and XP value.

To me that suggests the monster design and threat potential vis-a-vis level/XP is off. The encounter design method did well for me in 4e.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Since way back in the day, I/we, level-up when the party feels appropriate.