D&D 5E Experience points are too fiddly for me.

[delericho]

If there's no difference, why do you want elites put in the game that manages just fine without them?

Because...

The problem with having a single metric (level) for NPC power is that it then affects everything - the character must have better attacks, better defences, be more skilled, and so on. But that's very likely not what you want, because if you boost the attacks he becomes too lethal for the PCs, or if you boost the defences he becomes untouchable, or if you boost the skills, he gains access to powers that really don't fit.

It's also worth noting that 3e, in particular, already had a method for creating "elites" and "solos" - the DM did it by boosting the ability scores of the creature, with the knock-on effect to all the various totals, and a commensurate increase in CR. But that was always a crude measure - not only did it involve fiddly adjustments to the maths, but it also tended to create 'lopsided' challenges, allowing the PCs to strike at the weak-points, defeat the creature too easily, and thus reap undeserved XP awards.

(Incidentally, although it's not formalised, earlier editions also had similar approaches: the entries for humanoid monsters tended to read, "For every three orcs encountered, there will be a leader and three assistants. These orcs will have 8 hit points each..." or "They fight as monsters of 2 hit dice (THAC0 19)." For reference: Monstrous Manual 281-2.)

D&D has never managed without elites and solos in some form. 4e merely formalised it.

5e might be able to manage without. But past evidence suggests that the odds are very much against it.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Why is there any difference between the DM arbitrarily labelling him as "level 5" and the DM arbitrarily labelling him as "elite"?

The problem with having a single metric (level) for NPC power is that it then affects everything - the character must have better attacks, better defences, be more skilled, and so on. But that's very likely not what you want, because if you boost the attacks he becomes too lethal for the PCs, or if you boost the defences he becomes untouchable, or if you boost the skills, he gains access to powers that really don't fit.

It's also worth noting that 3e, in particular, already had a method for creating "elites" and "solos" - the DM did it by boosting the ability scores of the creature, with the knock-on effect to all the various totals, and a commensurate increase in CR. But that was always a crude measure - not only did it involve fiddly adjustments to the maths, but it also tended to create 'lopsided' challenges, allowing the PCs to strike at the weak-points, defeat the creature too easily, and thus reap undeserved XP awards.

(Incidentally, although it's not formalised, earlier editions also had similar approaches: the entries for humanoid monsters tended to read, "For every three orcs encountered, there will be a leader and three assistants. These orcs will have 8 hit points each..." or "They fight as monsters of 2 hit dice (THAC0 19)." For reference: Monstrous Manual 281-2.)

4e's elites and solos are basically just the same idea, but by formalising the second axis for advancement, they've made the math considerably easier, and also (mostly) gotten rid of the problem of lopsided challenges - all defences advance together.

It's hardly an axis, and it's really not that much better than previous editions' methods for creating enhanced opponents. You say that increasing HD had knock-on effects on attacks and defences in 3E, well, guess what? If you follow the strict rules of 4E and want a creature that can hit better, there are knock-on effects on its defences. Or, I don't know, you could do what every sensible 3E DM would do and have your elite orc with maximum HP for its HD - as if they were rolled and it somehow got lucky. Every edition has correlated aspects of attacks, hardiness and defences - so far in 5E we haven't seen that correlation (though I have concerns about HP/damage progression), and even if we did the effect of flattened math would reduce this.

I'm hoping that if I take a 5E Orc, I can make it tougher by simply maximising it's HP, I can make it more accurate by just giving it a bonus to hit and offering some more XP for this, I can make it harder to hit by giving it better armor - all independently of one another.

 

[MarkB]

If there's no difference, why do you want elites put in the game that manages just fine without them?

In 4e, elites and solos had their place because math scaled very quickly between levels. Not so in 5e. Much flatter math means that you can simply use a higher level monster instead of elitizing a lower level monster to have the same (or similar enough) effect.

That's true of early 4e, but as the system was revised, one thing that became clear was that elites and especially solos didn't just need inflated hit points or defenses, they needed ways to survive in the face of D&D's action economy - ways that just one or two creatures could go up against half a dozen opponents without being hamstrung.

Later solo monster design reflects this, with better ways to have some effect out of turn and to shrug off save-or-suck status effects. A simple level increase doesn't provide those options.

 

[Blackwarder]

I hate arbitrary Elite and Solo tags, I hope that with flatter math I can use and ogre as an elite monster for my low level group and later on as a minion for my high level groups.
I would love to just be able to slap plate armor, dark blades of Mordor and maximize HP and be done with that.

But I would also like to have creatures like dragons and giant squids have baked in ways to deal with a group of players without restoring to metagamy ways and if we do than it should be firmly imbedded in the creature description.

I liked the red dragon we had in a thread several months ago, It had expertise dies that it could use to either deal extra damage or convert to extra actions, that was a very nice concept.

As for the OP, The last thing I want to get back to is 4e way of treating monsters, if it does get back I'll be happy if they kept it in the advance rules.

Warder

 

[Szatany]

I hate arbitrary Elite and Solo tags, I hope that with flatter math I can use and ogre as an elite monster for my low level group and later on as a minion for my high level groups.
I would love to just be able to slap plate armor, dark blades of Mordor and maximize HP and be done with that.

Exactly what I'm hoping for as well!

 

[D'karr]

If he is so powerful, why is he being used as some low-level punisher?

Master / Blaster comes to mind. Just because a creature is very powerful in its own right does not mean that it cannot be loyal/controlled/manipulated by a less physically powerful creature.

 

[the Jester]

If you find that xps are too fiddly, why not just adopt a "level when the dm says you level" approach?

That seems like it would solve all the problems, including pacing of leveling, figuring the xp values of custom monsters, etc.

 

[Lackhand]

If you find that xps are too fiddly, why not just adopt a "level when the dm says you level" approach?

That seems like it would solve all the problems, including pacing of leveling, figuring the xp values of custom monsters, etc.

Almost all of the problems

XP in Next serve two purposes: tracking progress towards level-up AND estimating the difficulty of an encounter.

"You level when you level" fixes the first problem, but leaves us needing a fix for the second one.
Monster level is an okay number to use for this, but there are clearly more variables at play than that number alone; more advice for the DM on estimating challenges would be nice.

That's what I meant by XP here, since in 5e, each encounter has a ration of XP to spend.

 

[Szatany]

If you find that xps are too fiddly, why not just adopt a "level when the dm says you level" approach?

That seems like it would solve all the problems, including pacing of leveling, figuring the xp values of custom monsters, etc.

I just thought of something. What if, for those who like OP don't want XP in their game, each character had a small list of things that he or she has to do before he or she levels up. For example, a fighter player might have to do each of the following at least once:
- defeat an opponent of equal or higher level
- take part of a battle involving at least 5 opponents
- use every of his trained skills (only uses that actually do something desired are counted)
- take a hit and lose HP
- use each known maneuver and every other activated class ability once

Its not for everyone, but might be an interesting experience.

 

[Blackwarder]

I just thought of something. What if, for those who like OP don't want XP in their game, each character had a small list of things that he or she has to do before he or she levels up. For example, a fighter player might have to do each of the following at least once:
- defeat an opponent of equal or higher level
- take part of a battle involving at least 5 opponents
- use every of his trained skills (only uses that actually do something desired are counted)
- take a hit and lose HP
- use each known maneuver and every other activated class ability once

Its not for everyone, but might be an interesting experience.

Advanced rule module...

Warder