D&D 5E Why do we award Encounter XP instead of Adjusted XP?
- Thread starter Delandel
- Start date
Delandel
First Post
Wow, seriously? I still can't wrap my head around that idea being a legitimate concern. Thank you for sharing that though.
The monsters' experience shouldn't scale according to the PC's levels.
BoldItalic
First Post
For me, awarding unadjusted XP makes more sense because it covers partially successful encounters and layered encounters.
Suppose six bandits is a medium encounter, allowing for the x2 because there are six. Encounter 1 is with six bandits defending the outer walls of a fort and Encounter 2 is six more bandits defending the keep. If the encounters were unconnected, you could do the XP either way and it wouldn't matter much apart from rate of advancement. Each encounter is worth something and they are both worth the same.
Now let's connect the encounters. In encounter 1, the PCs kill three bandits and the remaining three retreat into the keep. You now have three dead bandits and nine live ones. The PCs shoot some arrows into the keep and kill one bandit but then decide not to storm the keep yet because it's obviously too strong. (You know that, because if six is medium, nine is deadly; and maybe they know that too).
How much XP do you award? Four bandits killed is worth 4 bandits. The first encounter is not worth 6 because the other three weren't defeated - they are still there, in the keep and still a threat. It's not worth x2 because the PCs didn't defeat all six. And what about Encounter 2, if the PCs come back next session and take on the keep? Do we recompute it x2.5 because there are now eight, or is it x2 for the original six and x2 for the extra three? And was the one that was shot in the keep one of the three who retreated or one of the original defenders of the keep? It's a nightmare to calculate.
Much simpler just to count the dead ones, regardless of which encounter they were in. You understand it, the players understand it, and everyone is happy.
Suppose six bandits is a medium encounter, allowing for the x2 because there are six. Encounter 1 is with six bandits defending the outer walls of a fort and Encounter 2 is six more bandits defending the keep. If the encounters were unconnected, you could do the XP either way and it wouldn't matter much apart from rate of advancement. Each encounter is worth something and they are both worth the same.
Now let's connect the encounters. In encounter 1, the PCs kill three bandits and the remaining three retreat into the keep. You now have three dead bandits and nine live ones. The PCs shoot some arrows into the keep and kill one bandit but then decide not to storm the keep yet because it's obviously too strong. (You know that, because if six is medium, nine is deadly; and maybe they know that too).
How much XP do you award? Four bandits killed is worth 4 bandits. The first encounter is not worth 6 because the other three weren't defeated - they are still there, in the keep and still a threat. It's not worth x2 because the PCs didn't defeat all six. And what about Encounter 2, if the PCs come back next session and take on the keep? Do we recompute it x2.5 because there are now eight, or is it x2 for the original six and x2 for the extra three? And was the one that was shot in the keep one of the three who retreated or one of the original defenders of the keep? It's a nightmare to calculate.
Much simpler just to count the dead ones, regardless of which encounter they were in. You understand it, the players understand it, and everyone is happy.
Uller
Adventurer
Right. I augment xp with story awards. Minor story points equal an easy encounter. Major points equal a hard encounter or occasionally a deadly one. My players typically earn 1-3 minor awards per session and major ones once every 2 or 3 sessions. A minor award is usually for something that advances a minor plot line or affects a minor NPC. A major award is for things the end a plot line and affect a large numper of NPCs (save the village at low levels for instance). This means my players are motivated to do more than just kill monsters.
It is absolutely a legit concern IMO. It all goes back to 5E's decision to focus on the adventure rather than the encounter. Players often have control over whether they tackle monsters in small groups or as one big group (e.g., do you make an effort to kill sentries, lure monsters away from their allies, and disable alarms, or do you just wade in swinging?). If adjusted XP equals actual XP, then the game punishes you for using clever tactics to split up monsters.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Here's another reason: awarding flat XP instead of adjusted means you don't have to worry about whether or not the presence of friendly NPCs (hirelings) on your side reduces the difficulty modifier to XP, or if they don't count because they're not strong enough relative to the party. You can ignore all that and just add up the XP from the number of monsters.
Lord Woolf
Villager
This. Xp, and awarding XP, is simply a mechanic to progress the game. Give XP as you see fit, and just use the rules as a hand rail.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Hey, I see you’re new to the forums. Welcome! For future reference, it’s a good idea to check the date on a post before responding to it. While the subject of how to award XP is certainly still a relevant one, this specific conversation has been dormant for 6 years.
That said, we’re here now and it’s an interesting topic, so may as well take the opportunity to discuss it. Personally, these days I award XP based on encounter complexity rather than encounter difficulty. Easy simple encounters that can be run with little to no prep work or visual aid are worth XP equivalent to an Easy encounter for the party’s average level. Encounters that are complex enough to require some prep work and/or a visual aid like a battle map are worth a Medium encounter’s XP, and climactic set piece encounters are with a Hard encounter’s XP.
Similar Threads
