D&D 5E Not fully grasping the pattern of the XP per CR table

[Argyle King]

I've been spending a lot of time looking at the "Experience Points by Challenge Rating" table found on page 275 of the DMG.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious, but I'm not grasping the pattern of how the math works.

There seems to be some amount of consistency among each tier of play. For example, each point of XP in levels 5-8 is worth somewhere around .0025 CR; in other tiers, the value is different. However, despite breaking down some of the math, I'm still not sure that I understand the pattern or how values were determined.

As for why I'm even bothering: I've been doing some work at trying to figure out a better way to determine CR and XP values for creatures.

Currently, I'm using the chart as written, but I have been using variable amounts of XP as a way to fine tune created creatures. For example, a creature that's a little tougher than a typical CR 2 might be worth 500 XP (instead of 450) to indicate that, while it's not difficult enough to justify CR 3, it's still tougher than a CR 2. Basically, I've been using CR as the rough measurement and then XP as (like I already said) a way to fine tune things.

Now that I've started doing that, I've decided to dig a little deeper and try to gain some understanding of what the thought process was behind determining the actual numbers used on the chart.

 

[Li Shenron]

I feel like I'm missing something obvious, but I'm not grasping the pattern of how the math works.

I wouldn't assume there is a pattern... you might be wasting your time trying to understand how they came up with the numbers. But you can try to ask them directly for example in Twitter. My guess is that they just picked some numbers as a rule of thumb, and maybe tweak them a bit up or down after playtesting feedback.

 

[CapnZapp]

Don't worry about it. There's no science, and you're better off ignoring it anyway

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Fanaelialae]

If you want to go this route, I'd say just use percentages. Simply take the difference between it's current CR xp value and the xp value of the next CR, multiply it by the percent you feel it exceeds it's base CR, and add that to the original xp value.

 

[Argyle King]

If you want to go this route, I'd say just use percentages. Simply take the difference between it's current CR xp value and the xp value of the next CR, multiply it by the percent you feel it exceeds it's base CR, and add that to the original xp value.

That's similar to what I've been doing.

I haven't been that exact with it. I've determined what the value of the halfway point between two CRs would be. For example, a CR 1 creature is worth 200; CR 2 is 450, so CR 1.5 is 325XP.

Most of the time, I don't bother with the extra math, but sometimes a creature I create (or one from the MM) appears to be particular tough for a given CR, so I decide it is worth a little more. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes a creature seems particularly weaker than a given CR, so I feel they're worth a little less. Knowing what the half-CR values are gives me a range of numbers to fine-tune with.

Why I've started trying to understand how the printed numbers were chosen is an extra step beyond this. While not needed, it's something I've become curious about after a few failed attempts at discerning a pattern. I think I may have found one (which I didn't post because a wall of numbers-as-text didn't add anything to the conversation), but even then it seems to mostly be a coincidence of how numbers work. I'm trying to work out if the numbers were a deliberate choice of design or not. In either case, as I fiddle with the charts more, I'm starting to feel as though there may be a more accurate way of doing the math for 5E... but without knowing if the current math has a reason for being what it is, I'm not sure.

By comparison, the XP budgets and values in 4th Edition had a consistent pattern. Even when I ended up rewriting them, I could comprehend where/why certain numbers were rounded (up or down). The math made sense to me even if there were parts of it I disagreed with in 4th. In 5th, I'm having a hard time making sense of how the math progresses.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's similar to what I've been doing.

I haven't been that exact with it. I've determined what the value of the halfway point between two CRs would be. For example, a CR 1 creature is worth 200; CR 2 is 450, so CR 1.5 is 325XP.

Most of the time, I don't bother with the extra math, but sometimes a creature I create (or one from the MM) appears to be particular tough for a given CR, so I decide it is worth a little more. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes a creature seems particularly weaker than a given CR, so I feel they're worth a little less. Knowing what the half-CR values are gives me a range of numbers to fine-tune with.

Why I've started trying to understand how the printed numbers were chosen is an extra step beyond this. While not needed, it's something I've become curious about after a few failed attempts at discerning a pattern. I think I may have found one (which I didn't post because a wall of numbers-as-text didn't add anything to the conversation), but even then it seems to mostly be a coincidence of how numbers work. I'm trying to work out if the numbers were a deliberate choice of design or not. In either case, as I fiddle with the charts more, I'm starting to feel as though there may be a more accurate way of doing the math for 5E... but without knowing if the current math has a reason for being what it is, I'm not sure.

By comparison, the XP budgets and values in 4th Edition had a consistent pattern. Even when I ended up rewriting them, I could comprehend where/why certain numbers were rounded (up or down). The math made sense to me even if there were parts of it I disagreed with in 4th. In 5th, I'm having a hard time making sense of how the math progresses.

As I understand it, the numbers are our fault.

WotC did a survey asking, among other things, about the preferred speed of leveling. The result is that tier 1 characters level fast, tier 2 characters level slow, tier 3 characters level fast, and tier 4 characters level slow. There's also a bit of variation inside the tiers (such as level 1 is over in the blink of an eye, but going from level 2 to 3 takes a bit more time).

Higher level monsters need to give more xp than lower level monsters, but also need to give an appropriate amount to pace the desired speed of leveling. As such, you have 5e.

 

[Xeviat]

As I understand it, the numbers are our fault.

WotC did a survey asking, among other things, about the preferred speed of leveling. The result is that tier 1 characters level fast, tier 2 characters level slow, tier 3 characters level fast, and tier 4 characters level slow. There's also a bit of variation inside the tiers (such as level 1 is over in the blink of an eye, but going from level 2 to 3 takes a bit more time).

Higher level monsters need to give more xp than lower level monsters, but also need to give an appropriate amount to pace the desired speed of leveling. As such, you have 5e.

I feel like the XP to level each level does a bit of this too. There are significant jumps at certain tiers, or at least I notice significant differences in the amount of "appropriate XP" from level 4 to 5 in the encounter building calculators. As they're balancing 3 things (monster XP to challenge rating, monster xp to strength of the PCs, and PC growth rate), I wouldn't be surprised if there's some underlying math.

 

[MostlyDm]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the game isn't designed for you to face perfectly "level appropriate" challenges at all times.

And XP isn't a measure of difficulty... by design, since bounded accuracy means that low level monsters in large enough numbers remain threatening *forever* but XP rewards don't scale linearly.

10 goblins is less XP than a bandit captain, but they're vastly more deadly to a party of 2nd level PCs.

I think the goal is for DMs in a 3e/4e mindset of "level appropriate" challenges to get a smooth pace of leveling, sort of like what Fanaelialae said.

For everyone else.. big set piece fights with a scary new monster (e.g. Dragon) give a satisfying, memorable chunk of XP, especially if the monster CR is double party level or something suitably lethal.

The drudgery of fighting regular mooks – the typical adventuring encounter – drops off in XP value as the party levels and keeps progress a bit slower.

A good sandbox would have a nice mix of the two.

 

[Xeviat]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the game isn't designed for you to face perfectly "level appropriate" challenges at all times.

And XP isn't a measure of difficulty... by design, since bounded accuracy means that low level monsters in large enough numbers remain threatening *forever* but XP rewards don't scale linearly.

10 goblins is less XP than a bandit captain, but they're vastly more deadly to a party of 2nd level PCs.

I think the goal is for DMs in a 3e/4e mindset of "level appropriate" challenges to get a smooth pace of leveling, sort of like what Fanaelialae said.

For everyone else.. big set piece fights with a scary new monster (e.g. Dragon) give a satisfying, memorable chunk of XP, especially if the monster CR is double party level or something suitably lethal.

The drudgery of fighting regular mooks – the typical adventuring encounter – drops off in XP value as the party levels and keeps progress a bit slower.

A good sandbox would have a nice mix of the two.

10 goblins is less XP than a bandit captain, but there's a huge challenge multiplier for determining how the fight goes. I disagree that XP granted is equal to the monster's XP value; I've been giving it based on encounter's challenge value. Yes, this means that fighting 10 goblins at once is going to give you more XP than fighting 10 goblins in a row; fighting 10 v 1 is going to be a good experience session (like when I used to play with my siblings 1 v 3 in Smash Bros).

10 goblins at once for a party of 4 is 1250 XP adjusted challenge. 1 Bandit Captain is 450.

 

[MostlyDm]

10 goblins is less XP than a bandit captain, but there's a huge challenge multiplier for determining how the fight goes. I disagree that XP granted is equal to the monster's XP value; I've been giving it based on encounter's challenge value. Yes, this means that fighting 10 goblins at once is going to give you more XP than fighting 10 goblins in a row; fighting 10 v 1 is going to be a good experience session (like when I used to play with my siblings 1 v 3 in Smash Bros).

10 goblins at once for a party of 4 is 1250 XP adjusted challenge. 1 Bandit Captain is 450.

I totally understand why you do that, and I've done it myself for certain games.

But that's explicitly counter to the way the DMG indicates XP is awarded. You aren't "supposed" to use those multipliers for XP awards, only for calculating effective XP for purposes of difficulty of the fight.

The standard is for tough monsters to be exciting bags of XP, and even the grueling fights with crappy mooks to be less rewarding and desirable.