D&D 5E D&D Next info from PAX Prime + answering questions

[GX.Sigma]

They want to decouple XP and level, so that they could make a level 5 dragon stronger than a level 5 orc, without forcing all of the level based modifiers to increase.

I don't understand this. If the dragon is stronger than the orc, why are they both level 5? What does level even mean, then?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't understand this. If the dragon is stronger than the orc, why are they both level 5? What does level even mean, then?

I think a level 5 monster is a monster well-matched to a party of level 5 adventurers. A level 5 dragon worth 1000xp should be about as tough to fight as a group of five 200xp level 5 orcs. But a level 15 demon minion could also be worth 1000xp - he'd probably have much higher damage and lower hp than the dragon, since he's meant to be a minor threat to high-level players.

 

[The Shadow]

We know that traditions will include things like "war mage" and "wild mage," and it seems like "specialist" could be a tradition too.

Hm, I hadn't heard the "war mage" part, that's interesting.

While specializing could restrict spells (unlikely, given that they said "instead of giving up some other school of magic...you're just better at casting illusions"), it doesn't seem like the other traditions would.

Given what Cybit said above, it may be that traditions will make some spells harder to cast. ie, an Illusionist casting Fireball may have to expend more slots to do it.

In the same way, a War Mage might have trouble with, say, Charm Person. Hard to say what, if anything, a Wild Mage would have trouble with... maybe it varies from day to day.

 

[triqui]

I think a level 5 monster is a monster well-matched to a party of level 5 adventurers. A level 5 dragon worth 1000xp should be about as tough to fight as a group of five 200xp level 5 orcs. But a level 15 demon minion could also be worth 1000xp - he'd probably have much higher damage and lower hp than the dragon, since he's meant to be a minor threat to high-level players.

Even without extreme examples, maybe a group of 4 lvl 5 orcs have the same threat against a 5x PC group than a group of 3 lvl 5 gnolls and 6 lvl 5 hobgoblins.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think a level 5 monster is a monster well-matched to a party of level 5 adventurers. A level 5 dragon worth 1000xp should be about as tough to fight as a group of five 200xp level 5 orcs. But a level 15 demon minion could also be worth 1000xp - he'd probably have much higher damage and lower hp than the dragon, since he's meant to be a minor threat to high-level players.

I guess so, but I liked 4e's thing of having a single X-level monster being just as strong as a single X-level PC.

A system like that would also make monster class leveling much easier to comprehend--a 5th-level monster plus two levels of Wizard would be a 7th-level monster, for example.

Even without extreme examples, maybe a group of 4 lvl 5 orcs have the same threat against a 5x PC group than a group of 3 lvl 5 gnolls and 6 lvl 5 hobgoblins.

That still doesn't make sense--if orcs and hobgoblins are the same, but orcs are way stronger, then why are they both level 5?

 

[GreyICE]

Because level is an abstraction that is only useful for the PCs. It doles out the player's progression through the world. On monsters it is a metagame concept that shows that the monster is a suitable challenge for a certain level of PC.

By combining level with XP budget you have a good guideline for building encounters that virtually any new DM can use. Experienced DMs can probably safely ignore the guidelines, but systems don't cater to experienced players (or they fail spectacularly quickly).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

That still doesn't make sense--if orcs and hobgoblins are the same, but orcs are way stronger, then why are they both level 5?

It doesn't have to be way stronger, just slightly stronger or weaker. +/-1 average damage or +1/-1 hitpoints per hit die are things that make monsters stronger/weaker but do not make them a level stronger or weaker.

If hobgoblins do -1 damage less on average but are in all other ways equivalent to orcs, and a level X orc warrior is worth 100xp then a level X hobgoblin warrior might be worth 95 xp. Gnolls, on the other hand, might deal +1 damage on average and have 2 more hit points per hit die so a level X gnoll warrior might be worth 115 xp.

 

[slobster]

It doesn't have to be way stronger, just slightly stronger or weaker. +/-1 average damage or +1/-1 hitpoints per hit die are things that make monsters stronger/weaker but do not make them a level stronger or weaker.

If hobgoblins do -1 damage less on average but are in all other ways equivalent to orcs, and a level X orc warrior is worth 100xp then a level X hobgoblin warrior might be worth 95 xp. Gnolls, on the other hand, might deal +1 damage on average and have 2 more hit points per hit die so a level X gnoll warrior might be worth 115 xp.

That level of granularity isn't necessary. Having two level X monsters that are identical except for +/-3 hp should be avoided in general (different can of worms). It's even more important that the system not try to award different amounts of experience for overcoming them. All level X enemies should grant Y xp (ignoring for the moment minions, solos and so on).

Otherwise you back yourself into a corner. Orcs are worth more than gnolls because they have 10 extra hp but are otherwise identical? What about two monsters that are identical except one has 3 more hp, but the other deals d8 instead of d6 damage? What about the two monsters that are the same, but one has +1 AC and the other can move 10 feet per round faster?

Giving monsters levels lets you roughly gauge how challenging they are, and assigns an xp standard for that level of challenge. Trying to zoom in and award xp per hp and attack bonus is clunky and overcomplicated, IMO. It will lead to endless headaches in assigning finicky little xp numbers that are insignificant anyway in the long term, and will spawn endless arguments about whether the numbers accurately reflect monster challenge or are just arbitrary variance.

 

[Stormonu]

It doesn't have to be way stronger, just slightly stronger or weaker. +/-1 average damage or +1/-1 hitpoints per hit die are things that make monsters stronger/weaker but do not make them a level stronger or weaker.

If hobgoblins do -1 damage less on average but are in all other ways equivalent to orcs, and a level X orc warrior is worth 100xp then a level X hobgoblin warrior might be worth 95 xp. Gnolls, on the other hand, might deal +1 damage on average and have 2 more hit points per hit die so a level X gnoll warrior might be worth 115 xp.

Sounds kind of like the 1E/BECM way of adjusting monster XP based on special abilities (using HD as a base - in the new way, level instead).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

That level of granularity should be glossed over. Having two level X monsters that are absolutely identical except for +/-3 hp or 1 attack bonus should be avoided in general, but it's even more important that the system not try to distinguish between the two in terms of experience granted for overcoming them. Rather, all level X enemies should grant Y xp, regardless of how individual monsters of that level vary (regardless of minions, solos and so on).

Otherwise you back yourself into a corner. Orcs are worth more than gnolls because they have 10 extra hp but are otherwise identical? Leaving aside the question of why you bothered making two separate monsters that are so similar, giving them different xp values opens the floodgates. What about two monsters that are identical except one has 3 more hp, but the other deals d8 instead of d6 damage? What about the two monsters that are the same, but one has +1 AC and the other can move 10 feet per round faster?

Giving monsters levels lets you roughly gauge how challenging they are, and assigns an xp standard for that level of challenge. Trying to zoom in and award xp per hp and attack bonus is clunky and overcomplicated, IMO.

First of all, I said otherwise equivalent, not identical. 2d6+2 damage with a 75% chance to hit and 2d12+5 with a 50% chance to hit are equivalent (9 average damage per attack) but not identical.

Second, I pulled those number out of nowhere. They were an attempt to loosely illustrate the concept, but I have a better example that can show you the designers though processes. Look at the Skeleton vs the Zombie in the playtest bestiary. The Skeleton and the Zombie are both viable level 2 monsters, but the Skeleton is a bit more powerful and therefore worth 30 extra xp.