D&D 5E XP calculator observation

[Nevvur]

Before I get to the point, if this has already been discussed, I'd appreciate a link to the discussion. Thanks!

Anyway, I don't actually use the encounter XP calculator in the DMG. I tried it a few times early on, and never felt like it produced satisfactory challenges for the suggest difficulties. Part of this has to do with my DMing style (fewer encounters per long rest than the 6-8 encounter adventuring day), and partly because I found another calculator on these forums that's easier and handles CR disparity better.

However, I was discussing the DMG calculator with another player recently, and arrived at an observation I haven't seen noted in other discussions on the topic: the calculator recognizes monster synergy, but not PC synergy.

Each PC gets assigned an XP threshold based on his level, and the thresholds for each PC in the party create the Party XP threshold. The math is purely additive. Meanwhile, the XP from the monsters gets a multiplier based on the number of monsters, reflecting their ability to be more dangerous when coordinating.

Again, this is just an observation. No real questions here, though I am interested to hear some pitches on what people might think would be a reasonable "party size multiplier" that accounts for PC synergy. Disclaimer: I understand the level of synergy varies wildly with player expertise, the amount of OOC communication the DM allows, actual class composition of the party, and even more exotic factors.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The DMG system takes into account party size, just as it does with monsters. It simply does so in the monster XP math. Take a look on DMG 83 under the heading Party Size.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I ignore all that. I use the XP in the monster description as what they are each 'worth'. I think fudge that total based on how the players interpreted the encounter and how well their characters actually did. For example lets say a group of 4, 5th level characters kills some monsters and the total XP for that is 1,000xp. If it was a cake walk and the players never felt any sort of 'danger', and didn't really do much other than swing their weapons at the monsters...then I probably reduce the XP to 400 or 500. However, if they really had a tough time, and the players were honestly afraid of defeat or death, and tried many different 'out of the box' (or at least somewhat creative) ways to win...then they get the full amount. Maybe even a bit more (say, +200xp, for a 1,200xp total). This does two things for me.

First is that is that it reflects my idea that if the PCs are doing different or unusual things to win...they are learning new "tricks and techniques", working together, gaining self-confidence, etc. They are getting experienced at this whole 'try not to die' thing.

Second is that it removes more incentive to min/max/optimize. If everyone has a min/maxed character, a combat will, by the book, be more 'powerful' than what the game is assuming. So the players are less incentivised to actually try and think and role-play (IME, at least). It also covers the fact that the PC's had a much easier time, or to put it another way, they didn't really have to do anything 'new'...they just did the same ol' same ol' of what they already know and laid the smackdown on some poor beast (think of it like a MMA pro fighting some regular 9-to-5 office working, couch-sitting dude with no real fighting skills). Yeah, this does piss off the power gamers that attempt to play in my games...and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Helps weed 'em out. They complain that they spent "all this time pouring over books to make a really good pole-arm fighter, and now it's taking forever to gain levels fighting the things that they should be fighting at their level". Well duh! The goblins and giant rats are no match for his "optimized" character. You know the old saying, "Desperation is the mother of all invention" (or something like that... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Oofta]

I use the PEL calculations you linked to and ignore the number of creatures on either side. If I'm throwing a lot of lower level monsters at the PCs, the only change I make is to break them up into different initiative groups and frequently stagger their entrances. You also have to be a little careful with some creatures such as Flame Skulls that can deal out massive amounts of damage if they get lucky.

Other than that, I find it a better guide than the calculation from the DMG (and simpler to boot) since the DMG seems to over-emphasize the threat of a large number of opponents.

 

[JonnyP71]

I completely ignore calculators and recommendations and use nothing more than gut-feeling and my own sense of 'realism', and often adjust encounters on the fly based on how a party is coping. But equally, I don't make concessions for stupidity... and not every encounter should be 'winnable' by brute force.

If a party of 4 1st level characters decide to take on a group of Ogres I'm not going to stop them!

 

[Nevvur]

The DMG system takes into account party size, just as it does with monsters. It simply does so in the monster XP math. Take a look on DMG 83 under the heading Party Size.

I somehow missed that, thanks for pointing it out. It doesn't feel very precise, but then neither do the multipliers for the number of monsters. IMO, the difference between a party of 3 and 5 in terms of synergy is significant enough to warrant some in between steps, as is the difference between 3 and 6 monsters.

That said, I understand these group size ranges (PC and monsters) and multipliers arose from the objective of keeping things simple. And at the end of the day, I'm still not going to use the calculator anyway.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I somehow missed that, thanks for pointing it out. It doesn't feel very precise, but then neither do the multipliers for the number of monsters. IMO, the difference between a party of 3 and 5 in terms of synergy is significant enough to warrant some in between steps, as is the difference between 3 and 6 monsters.

That said, I understand these group size ranges (PC and monsters) and multipliers arose from the objective of keeping things simple. And at the end of the day, I'm still not going to use the calculator anyway.

I agree, it's not mathematically precise. It's only an estimate, though I would have given my left hand for it back in the days of 2nd edition (when I first started DMing). But even PEL (the calculator you linked) only uses a rough estimate of a monster's equivalence to a PC.

I actually use both calculators myself. I set up a simple spreadsheet that lets me plug in both parties and returns the calculations, so that it's not any extra effort. I find that using both is more reliable than just one or the other. One of them is usually a fair estimate of the encounter difficulty, so having both gives me the range of what to expect.