D&D 5E Challenge Rating formula...

[I'm A Banana]

What I don't like about this is that it doesn't properly reward creative solutions that make what are designed to be hard fights much easier. It encourages players not to play at their best because that makes the fight "harder" and any player who isn't completely oblivious to the fact that the DM is making up how much XP they get will figure out that those numbers go up when they have a "harder" time.

If the fight is absolutely trivialized by the party, the best thing the DM can do is come prepared next time for a more proper challenge. Otherwise I would reward my players more for creative thinking that made a fight easier than for not doing so and making the fight harder than it needed to be.

Of the many masters that XP may serve in a game, I personally find that using it as a reward for good play is one of the weakest. In large part, this is because it's hard to see any real change in dynamics because of more XP.

Like, if I give out XP for good play as a reward, that ultimately causes the party to gain levels faster, which in effect just causes them to fight stronger monsters. "You did really good on that goblin encounter, so you're going to be rewarded by fighting hobgoblins now!" doesn't feel like much of an actual reward, even if the "big number getting bigger" and "new level hotness" aspect of handing out XP does feel nice.

What I tend to favor - and what 5e makes easy to favor - is treasure as a reward for good play. Magic items and GP. This stuff enhances the performance of a character across the 2/3 pillars of play (GP is mostly an RP resource, magic items are mostly a combat resource). GP can have that "big number getting bigger" phenomenon, and is fun to find ways to blow. Magic items are a bit of randomized new level hotness.

So rather than give them more XP, I'll give them more treasure - more GP, more magic items. If you take down a deadly enemy with smart play, you don't earn extra XP from it, but you DO get the thing's full treasure hoard, and if you didn't use many resources, you can go to the next source of goodies almost instantly!

YMMV, of course, I just thought it was worth pointing out that if you're looking to reward smart players and good play, it might be worth looking to places other than XP for that anyway, since XP doesn't always feel like a reward.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you're throwing away the book and rewarding based on challenge, then it's easy to adjust. If it should have been deadly by creative use of spells or the terrain made it a cake walk, better xp.

The catch with trivializing encounters is that it quickly leads to rapid level gain by the book. Optimized and coordinated groups with the right synergy can take apart monsters (in any edition) and just adding more monsters will rocket them up levels.

This is one of the better arguments for using treasure won as the primary source of XP.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Though thinking about it, it might just be a bit about codifying the master that you want XP to serve.

• XP As Reward: Get the high score, gain the level, beat the challenge. XP measures how good you are at surviving.
• XP As Pacing: XP just traces how quickly you move through the 20 levels, and is more a narrative thing that tracks story moments.
• XP As Challenge Budget: XP should vary with the actual risk faced by the party - something that almost annihilates them should give more XP than something that they barely get hit with.

....etc....

 

[Tormyr]

If you're throwing away the book and rewarding based on challenge, then it's easy to adjust. If it should have been deadly by creative use of spells or the terrain made it a cake walk, better xp.

The catch with trivializing encounters is that it quickly leads to rapid level gain by the book. Optimized and coordinated groups with the right synergy can take apart monsters (in any edition) and just adding more monsters will rocket them up levels.

This is why the default xp award is based on the monster's xp value instead of the encounter difficulty xp value. 10 CR1/8 creatures are worth 250 xp but ~719 encounter difficulty xp against a 4 PC group. Using the encounter xp, or something similar that goes off the difficulty of the encounter would give the party 3 times the xp. A party awarded xp like that could go from level 3 to 4 in roughly a single adventuring day.

Unless I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say.

In my experience, it seems like default xp for monsters beaten (whether by killing, sneaking, capturing, subterfuge, etc.) along with story based xp seemed to feel "normal." At the same time, the pacing did not work for the conversion of the 3.5 AP we are running (it did not keep up with the recommended level for each of the AP's mondules). So I have them level once at the end of a module and once somewhere in the middle.

It seems like any xp awarding system would work as long as it rewards the play the DM wants to reward and levels the party at a pace the DM wants.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you're throwing away the book and rewarding based on challenge, then it's easy to adjust. If it should have been deadly by creative use of spells or the terrain made it a cake walk, better xp.

The catch with trivializing encounters is that it quickly leads to rapid level gain by the book. Optimized and coordinated groups with the right synergy can take apart monsters (in any edition) and just adding more monsters will rocket them up levels.

True, which is just further reasoning that I feel the XP system not well suited for my games. The difficulty of a challenge is less important than the reasoning for overcoming the challenge in the first place. A challenge that didn't need to happen because the party went about things like idiots isn't going to count very well towards advancement. A challenge, even an arguably "easy" one that was important for campaign reasons is going to count more. So seeking out challenges in the Dead Swamps may reward you cool loot, but it will take you more of those because nothing of import is going on over there, except apparently, a bunch of adventurers wreaking havoc on the ecosystem.

YMMV, of course, I just thought it was worth pointing out that if you're looking to reward smart players and good play, it might be worth looking to places other than XP for that anyway, since XP doesn't always feel like a reward.

True, but as above, I don't really like XP to begin with because there is a set advancement rate. Sometimes things need to proceed slowly, sometimes quickly, but sometimes those slowdowns will involve more combat, while those quicker times will involve less. Since I don't want to be constantly adjusting the XP rewards, I advance characters based on how much they advance (or hinder) the various plots in motion in the world.

 

[vandaexpress]

Brief thoughts.

- I've found throwing down level-appropriate CR encounters using the "quick" stat blocks in the DMG vs something from the MM often results in a tougher fight for the PCs. Anyone else notice this?

- I think a lot of people have pointed out that a lot of MM CRs are a little inconsistent. It's possible I'm not experienced enough to recognize why, for instance, a cultist and a guard are both CR 1/8. I therefore don't really feel guilty about bumping up stats every now and then on creatures that seem weak.

- Sometimes the guidelines result in a creature that should be of a certain CR but in practice is a bit off. An example from my own experience is the CR2 Cult Fanatic. Mediocre HP and AC, terrible attack bonus. I'm guessing his OCR is calc'd from him using inflict wounds, but his spell attack bonus is +3, which just isn't up to snuff against my party but is pretty much necessary in order to keep his OCR low. I wound up just using them in pairs and spamming the DC11 command "Grovel" on the party's low wis front line until it finally hit, then they run up and try to land inflict wounds with advantage and.... still miss. Comparing these guys to something like an Orog or the low CR mages from Phandelver and it's no contest which one is actually challenging. Default attack routine seems underpowered. YMMV but this seems to be a bigger deal at lower levels, I'm guessing/hoping? I'd like to be able to play creatures from the MM to save time, but low attack bonus-high damage beasties seem to be pretty weak for my party unless they have a FAT stack of hit points. Maybe bounded accuracy will kick in more at upper levels now that party ACs have more or less peaked.

- Magic items can have a huge effect on actual encounter difficulty, same if your group rolls stats. In particular, damage resistance creatures at low CRs are steamrolled if you've been liberally handing out items.

- Finally, IMXP party and monster tactics have a much bigger impact on the encounter difficulty than newbie DMs might initially expect. Min-maxers may also prevent issues if confronted with "standard" encounter guidelines.

- I haven't used slyflourish's guidelines yet, but I've already stolen his idea of bumping up the effective party level if the group seems to be stronger or better equipped than normal. I like it. Right now I'm running my party at encounters a level above them and I've found it presents a much more satisfying challenge for them.

- Situational modifiers (advantage/disadvantage) totally change the encounter. I'm a fan of ranged ambushes (used sparingly).