The Three Goblin Issue

[tresson]

So what if we tether it to XP only in the same way that "minions" and "solos" are tethered to XP?

That is, say a "standard encounter" at level 1 is 100 XP.

A beholder is worth 100 XP, and designed to be encountered alone.

A goblin is worth 25 XP, and designed to be encoutnered in a group.

Fight one goblin, it's 25 XP.

Fight four, it's 100 XP.

So, your bugbear might be worth 100 XP. But by level four, the "standard encounter" has balooned to, say, 400 XP.

This is really almost exactly the same as 4e's current minion/solo rules, it's just expanded so that an "encounter budget" is only one part of a bigger whole -- the "adventure budget."

Before I comment on it I just want to check I've got your concept right.

So what your presenting here is something like you have an adventure budget of, say, 1000xp, That can then be broken down into various encounters of different xp values? Does this include things like traps and other encounter-ish things like that?

Have I got your idea right?

 

[Savage Wombat]

You know, if they do something like that, they'll still need guidelines.

"A standard adventure for 4 6th level characters should include 24,000 exp. worth of encounters. A single monster or trap should not constitute more that 15% of that total, nor less that 2%. No single encounter should total more than 25% of the total budget for the adventure."

Then you do something similar for treasure, probably.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

KM, I thought I was following the main idea pretty well, but that last post lost me. I sense a concluding point that was not typed.

 

[Gryph]

I guess the disconnect for me is that this is already built into the system by way of individual monster XP.

Say that single goblin is worth 50XP. Three goblins? 150XP. Simple. Easy.

The premise I don't really agree with is that three goblins is MORE CHALLENGING than one goblin three times. That'd be true with a party size of 1, sure. But for most monsters to reach the kind of critical mass that buries a group of PCs, the numbers have to be much higher...

And even still, it's an encounter-level issue in my mind.

I think the problem with this is that 1 goblin, by himself, isn't 1/3rd as challenging he's more like 1/6th as challenging as the trio. So linear scaling, once you have the expected group size, works going up but not when you drop below the expected group size.

So I think if the XP value of creatures was scaled to the expected group size you need some guidelines to geometrical reduce the value of encounters that drop below the group size threshold.

 

[Boarstorm]

So I think if the XP value of creatures was scaled to the expected group size you need some guidelines to geometrical reduce the value of encounters that drop below the group size threshold.

(emphasis above is mine)

But... why?

If the players suckered some goblin into leaving the group and ambushed him, good on them. They deserve the reward.

If the DM just put one goblin by himself in a soundproof room, well, that's on the DM.

And even still, why are we worried about the 33 "bonus" XP from that goblin anyway? It's trivial even in the short run, and more of a pain to track than its probably worth.

 

[Gryph]

(emphasis above is mine)

But... why?

If the players suckered some goblin into leaving the group and ambushed him, good on them. They deserve the reward.

If the DM just put one goblin by himself in a soundproof room, well, that's on the DM.

And even still, why are we worried about the 33 "bonus" XP from that goblin anyway? It's trivial even in the short run, and more of a pain to track than its probably worth.

Lets see, two different cases here.

In the first case where the players lure a goblin away from his group, then good on them, full xp.

The second case is really about helping teach new players how to DM effectively. Its not wrong to say putting an isolated goblin is on the DM, but its not real helpful either. If you give xp budgets (or CRs) you are saying something explicit about the expected difficulty of facing a given creature. But, if your per creature xp (or cr) is given coming from an assumption that some number greater than one of that creature will be used at a time you should be just as explicit about that assumption. Otherwise you are giving false guidelines to the DM. A new DM will probably learn fairly quickly that one goblin is trivial rather than lesser threat, but what is gained by making him learn that by designing some garbage encounters in his first few adventures?

The reality is AD&D and later editions did give some form of advice to this effect. The terms and form have changed in every edition so its logical to expect them to change once more with this. I think its a useful discussion to talk about what those guidelines will look like coming from an adventure budget perspective.

 

[Boarstorm]

The reality is AD&D and later editions did give some form of advice to this effect. The terms and form have changed in every edition so its logical to expect them to change once more with this. I think its a useful discussion to talk about what those guidelines will look like coming from an adventure budget perspective.

Well, certainly. Advice is great. As is an indication of the numbers you should typically use in an encounter featuring said critter.

But why create a new subsystem that does neither effectively?

 

[Gryph]

Well, certainly. Advice is great. As is an indication of the numbers you should typically use in an encounter featuring said critter.

But why create a new subsystem that does neither effectively?

I'll grant you that there is no reason to do it ineffectively.

Why do you assume it would not be effective?

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, if your per creature xp (or cr) is given coming from an assumption that some number greater than one of that creature will be used at a time you should be just as explicit about that assumption. Otherwise you are giving false guidelines to the DM.

That's precisely what I'm babbling on about here.

An explicit assumption, built into the monster's stat block, about how many allies they will be encountered with.

I am full of word salad these days, but this is the central thesis here.

 

[howandwhy99]

Dividing forces against each other is a common means of battle. Just look at the Caves of Chaos for D&D's iconic example. Attack them en masse and they whole becomes more powerful than its parts. That's built into the system for a reason.

How easy it is to divide a force against itself should definitely be included in evaluating challenge XP total.

However I would strongly advise against awarding different XP for 10 foes divided than 10 foes united unless you want to remove the tactic of "divide & conquer" from the game.

XP is for besting a foe by the tactics chosen by the players. Doing it quickly or slowly, cheaply or costly is up to them. Who wants less XP because they chose to fight to win quickly and with relatively little loss?