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

[S'mon]

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.

The DMG specifically says not to do that. So your disagreement is wrong.

 

[Argyle King]

good conversation...

As I've considered things more, I think it does make sense that certain things are worth less at higher levels. As such, I could buy that each point of XP was worth less amount of CR. An example of this is that the Orc's aggressive quality has a higher impact on a creature's CR when added to a low level creature and less impact on a creature's CR when added to a higher level creature. Though, if that's the case, I'm not quite sure if there is a defined way of figuring out how the math changes.

It makes sense that different tiers of the game should be faster or slower as well. No confusion there, and that does give some insight on things, but I feel as though that may be an independent issue. Leveling speed could be adjusted by changing the amount of XP needed for each level, but, while related to my original questions, it's currently outside of what I'm looking at. (Though don't take that as meaning it shouldn't be discussed.)

Part of my increased interest in how XP values for critters of different levels are determined is based on a few different things. First, as said, the math doesn't have a clear pattern which I've noticed (but that's been somewhat answered by input from others). Secondly, as I've been perusing the forum, I've read multiple threads in which certain monsters are said to be either too easy or too hard for their given level, and I'm curious if perhaps that's because -by the raw numbers before adjusting for "tier speed"- they are. Thirdly, while 4th Edition certainly is not my favorite game (as is obvious by some of my posting history), I do think that 5th Edition monsters could benefit from some of the concepts seen in 4E; one such concept was the idea of "elites" being better than typical monsters of their level, but not quite boss monsters.

The first, as said, has been talked about and is leading to some interesting conversation on the topic. The second is something of which I am still unsure; I have opinions from a player pov, but my time as a 5E DM is minuscule. The third is something that I think could be done with my half-CR concept (but only considered while typing this post.)

So... 5th Edition "Elites"... [warning, this goes off on a bit of a side-conversation]

I think legendary actions and lair actions are a great idea. It's one of my favorite parts of 5th Edition, and it's a more codified version of something I had started doing toward the end of playing 4E to make Solos better. (Side note: I recently started playing in a 4E game, and the DM for that game has started adding 5E style legendary actions and lair actions to 4E Solos, and it has helped a lot.) I think adding a lesser version or perhaps fewer of the same things to a normal creature could make for an interesting sub-boss during an adventure. You might also be able to go the opposite way and steal a few tricks from 4E to make a monster a little bit tougher for one encounter. Some examples below:

Smaller Amount of/Lesser 5E style legendary action(s): Once per round, a particularly tough Ogre can -as a free action- try to stomp a PC who has been knocked prone and deal extra damage.

Adding some 4E stuff to a 5E creature: Perhaps the some hypothetical Ogre could be given an additional +2 to a save and one "action point" which it can use to take an extra action once per encounter.

I dunno... just a thinking as I type.

[getting back on track]


At any rate, as I've already said, I've come to realize that a lot of creatures I create myself tend to not neatly fall into the range of CRs. I quite often end up with creatures that fall somewhere in between. As said, most often, if it's at least close, I just round things off. However, occasionally, if something seems significantly tougher or weaker, I make it worth a little more or a little less. I also feel that some things (like a creature's speed, movement modes, and special senses) often do make a creature tougher (despite the rules of the game saying they do not) and using values between CRs can be a way to fine tune things when I think they matter. Ideally, if I start sketching out the "elite" idea, I'll likely aim for most of them to be at the half-CR marks.

At the same time, some of the insight I'm getting from this conversation and looking at the math related to it has given me some insight on designing traps (which is an area that I feel 5th is a bit more empty and boring than I'd like when looking at the DMG).

Things I'm learning from this thread: I thought I was supposed to multiply the rewarded XP when using multiple creatures. I didn't realize that multiplication was intended to only be used for gauging difficulty.

 

[hastur_nz]

The XP tables and XP maths, including monster CR numbers, are weird, and were NOT play-tested as written now. They may well have got feedback as per above, but they never gave us tables of numbers to actually comment on or test at our tables; they gave us 'combat encounters' to test, and the MM had CR numbers blanked out . So they were a surprise to us as play-testers, when finally published in the DMG and MM. And yes, I think they are out of whack, for a couple of reasons. Certainly not as clean and logical as 4e was. So as noted, you need to take with a grain of salt, and re-flavour to suit.

 

[Argyle King]

The XP tables and XP maths, including monster CR numbers, are weird, and were NOT play-tested as written now. They may well have got feedback as per above, but they never gave us tables of numbers to actually comment on or test at our tables; they gave us 'combat encounters' to test, and the MM had CR numbers blanked out . So they were a surprise to us as play-testers, when finally published in the DMG and MM. And yes, I think they are out of whack, for a couple of reasons. Certainly not as clean and logical as 4e was. So as noted, you need to take with a grain of salt, and re-flavour to suit.

It helps me to feel a little less crazy when I learn that I'm not the only one for whom the numbers do not make sense.

I had considered trying to rewrite the table and then go through and re-price the monsters using some math I came up with, but I was unsure if that would help some of the other issues I have or make them worse. Without fully grasping why the numbers are what they are (and not knowing if there is a game balance consideration I'm not seeing), it seemed like a lot of work without enough of an end-goal in mind to make it worthwhile. I did something similar during my time with 4th, and I feel that it helped engineer encounter design which I found more satisfactory, but I find that 5th isn't quite as transparent when it comes to understanding how some parts of the game of the math were determined.

 

[mflayermonk]

I think the math changes every tier (CR 1-4 +2 prof tier, CR 5-8 +3 prof tier, etc) as someone up thread mentioned.

You'll also find some things-such as dealing psychic damage-are incredibly powerful.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The DMG specifically says not to do that. So your disagreement is wrong.

You're correct that the DMG says not to do that, but that doesn't mean he's wrong to include the multiplier in the reward; he's simply encouraging a different style of play.

The DMG method is best for a group of players with an old school "thinking man's" style of play. If you have a room full of a dozen orcs, you get the same xp if you lure them out and kill them one by one, as if you just charged into the room. But the former has a much better risk/reward ratio than the latter.

However, if you want to encourage a kick in the door and charge into the room style of play, then rewarding the multiplier is the right way to go. You literally get more xp for attacking all dozen orcs at once than you would for luring them out one at a time. It makes the reward commensurate to the risk you are taking.

IMO, that's not wrong, it simply encourages a different style of play.

 

[S'mon]

You're correct that the DMG says not to do that, but that doesn't mean he's wrong to include the multiplier in the reward; he's simply encouraging a different style of play.

The DMG method is best for a group of players with an old school "thinking man's" style of play. If you have a room full of a dozen orcs, you get the same xp if you lure them out and kill them one by one, as if you just charged into the room. But the former has a much better risk/reward ratio than the latter.

However, if you want to encourage a kick in the door and charge into the room style of play, then rewarding the multiplier is the right way to go. You literally get more xp for attacking all dozen orcs at once than you would for luring them out one at a time. It makes the reward commensurate to the risk you are taking.

IMO, that's not wrong, it simply encourages a different style of play.

Yeah, hence the - it's an ok house rule for less tactics & faster advancement. I can't imagine using it myself, 5e XP charts are already pretty generous and I think the multiplier doesn't account for good use of AoE. On Sunday my 5-PC 1st level group were ambushed by 8 goblins, but the Dragonborn PC blasted 4 of them with his lightning breath in round 1 and it wasn't too hard (the dwarf Cleric got taken down to 0 by the other 4 gobbos, but the last goblin was killed before it could slit his throat) - 400 XP was reasonable but applying a x2.5 multiplier would have made it an excessive 1000 XP, two thirds of the way to 2nd level. I see checking the DMG pg 82 charts this was a Deadly encounter for 5 level 2 PCs, double-deadly at level 1 - hmm, maybe if the dice had gone differently.

 

[S'mon]

At any rate, as I've already said, I've come to realize that a lot of creatures I create myself tend to not neatly fall into the range of CRs. I quite often end up with creatures that fall somewhere in between. As said, most often, if it's at least close, I just round things off. However, occasionally, if something seems significantly tougher or weaker, I make it worth a little more or a little less. I also feel that some things (like a creature's speed, movement modes, and special senses) often do make a creature tougher (despite the rules of the game saying they do not) and using values between CRs can be a way to fine tune things when I think they matter. Ideally, if I start sketching out the "elite" idea, I'll likely aim for most of them to be at the half-CR marks.

Personally I use the 3e/PF method for assigning 5e CR - just make it up.

I tend to find that my threat-level assessment produces CRs close or identical to 5e MM monster CRs in the lower Tiers, but some of my Epic Tier (17-20) monsters work out much tougher than 5e MM monsters of the
listed CR. I suspect that a lot of the critters like Liches & Balors have inflated CRs that do not really reflect their true threat level. The dragons seem pretty reasonable though. Tome of Beasts creatures look much closer to my ad hoc CR assignments.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, hence the - it's an ok house rule for less tactics & faster advancement. I can't imagine using it myself, 5e XP charts are already pretty generous and I think the multiplier doesn't account for good use of AoE. On Sunday my 5-PC 1st level group were ambushed by 8 goblins, but the Dragonborn PC blasted 4 of them with his lightning breath in round 1 and it wasn't too hard (the dwarf Cleric got taken down to 0 by the other 4 gobbos, but the last goblin was killed before it could slit his throat) - 400 XP was reasonable but applying a x2.5 multiplier would have made it an excessive 1000 XP, two thirds of the way to 2nd level. I see checking the DMG pg 82 charts this was a Deadly encounter for 5 level 2 PCs, double-deadly at level 1 - hmm, maybe if the dice had gone differently.

Sounds deadly to me (remember that the DMG definition of deadly is that one or more characters MIGHT die). There's no accounting for AoE against a group, any more than you can account for Hold Monster against a single powerful foe. In both cases, with the right circumstances, the encounter might be trivialized. The converse of that is that the circumstances won't always be right (perhaps the creatures are in a formation that prevents Air, or the creature has a good save against Hold Monster.

Personally I use the 3e/PF method for assigning 5e CR - just make it up.

I tend to find that my threat-level assessment produces CRs close or identical to 5e MM monster CRs in the lower Tiers, but some of my Epic Tier (17-20) monsters work out much tougher than 5e MM monsters of the
listed CR. I suspect that a lot of the critters like Liches & Balors have inflated CRs that do not really reflect their true threat level. The dragons seem pretty reasonable though. Tome of Beasts creatures look much closer to my ad hoc CR assignments.

Just curious, but might it simply be that the higher level party has more/better magic items? Monsters are designed balanced against parties without magic items (so that magic items can actually improve the character), so it makes sense that higher level characters (who tend to have more/better magic items) would have an easier time against the same difficulty of challenge than a lower level party.

 

[S'mon]

Just curious, but might it simply be that the higher level party has more/better magic items? Monsters are designed balanced against parties without magic items (so that magic items can actually improve the character), so it makes sense that higher level characters (who tend to have more/better magic items) would have an easier time against the same difficulty of challenge than a lower level party.

I guess so, if the statting of CR 17+ MM monsters assumes NO magic items? My Wilderlands game is fairly low magic - the highest level PC only had a +1 shield & +2 sword at 16th level - but the monsters mostly still seem weak. My Golarion game is highish magic although the 12th-14th level PCs don't have any weapons above +1.
I expect they'll have +2 weapons before they face Runelord Karzoug.

Likewise I noticed converting PF monsters to 5e, at low-mid levels with a straight conversion (inc +50% damage & hp) the CRs translated straight over, but from CR 11+ the monsters ended up looking much tougher than most 5e MM monsters of same CR, even if they were still close to the DMG numbers for hit points & damage.