Why Not Award Adjusted Experience?

[Dralnu]

A party of four level 2 characters are fighting five Goblins being led by one Hobgoblin. Encounter XP Total: 350, Adjusted XP Total: 700, a Hard encounter. You divide 350 XP equally to the characters if they win.

The same party goes against one Githyanki Warrior. Encounter XP Total: 700, Adjusted XP Total: 700, a Hard encounter. This time you divide 700 XP equally to the characters if they win.

I don't get it. Why are we supposed to award Encounter XP instead of Adjusted?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I imagine it's to avoid the headache of players purposely grouping up enemies to increase xp rewards. Also, it makes it so there's no xp penalty for using clever tactics to split enemies up.

[xyianth]

This didn't make any sense to me either. The only thing I could come up with is that it sort of makes sense if XP is a physical thing in the D&D universe. (as in something you literally absorb from fallen foes) If using that interpretation, the encounter XP is the simple summation of the XP released when the foes die, but the adjusted XP value is an estimate of how difficult the encounter is only.

I don't actually play under this interpretation, but it's what I would use as an explanation if I did.

[SharkForce]

can't think of any compelling reason, but i would make a distinction between built-in increases and those caused by player/character actions.

for example, if you are going to award the adjusted xp for a large fight that your group manages, through clever playing, to break up into two or more smaller encounters, i would give full xp as if they fought them all at once. in contrast, if they make poor choices that lead to grouping up two encounters and making their lives harder, they wouldn't get it (if, however, they used clever planning to get two encounters into a space where they could drop AOE nukes and spend less resources as a result of clever planning, they would get the two separate encounter xp totals plus a bonus for coming up with a creative plan).

i would likewise adjust xp granted based on other factors, again making the distinction between situations caused by player actions (should not impact xp, other than getting bonus xp for well-executed plans distinct from encounter exp) and DM encounter design (which should impact xp; if the encounter is designed so that you're on top of a cliff with only one decent but narrow path going up and fighting melee enemies, reduce; if you're fighting poison-immune enemies in a room filled with poison gas, increase).

[Townopolis]

I think TheDeadlyShoe gave the most justifiable explanation. With that in mind, if you do decide to award adjusted XP, I would make sure that whatever you award is what you initially calculated. That is to say that your 5 goblins + hobgoblin encounter is worth 700 regardless of whether the PCs manage to split them up and kill them one goblin at a time; by the same token if you calculated two separate solo Githyanki encounters at 700 each, the players wouldn't be able to claim 1050 XP by drawing them together and then defeating both.

[Edit] I see you took a level in shadow monk, Sharkforce.

[calebrus]

It's a function of Bounded Accuracy trying to make low level mobs still relevant.

This way, you can still get XP from the lower level mobs, and they're still somewhat of a threat to you, but you're better off going after his "Mama" instead if you have a choice.

The alternative (granting adjusted XP) creates a situation where continuing to fight larger and larger groups of low level mobs becomes preferable to fighting appropriately leveled mobs.

Not granting the adjusted XP, but rather only the XP that the mobs are actually worth, makes you want to go after bigger and badder monsters as the game progresses, because they're worth more XP.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's a function of Bounded Accuracy trying to make low level mobs still relevant.

This way, you can still get XP from the lower level mobs, and they're still somewhat of a threat to you, but you're better off going after his "Mama" instead if you have a choice.

The alternative (granting adjusted XP) creates a situation where continuing to fight larger and larger groups of low level mobs becomes preferable to fighting appropriately leveled mobs.

Not granting the adjusted XP, but rather only the XP that the mobs are actually worth, makes you want to go after bigger and badder monsters as the game progresses, because they're worth more XP.

The alternative means that fighting large groups of low level monsters is the same, not better or worse than fighting higher-power monsters. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Why should fighting smaller numbers of stronger monsters be preferable to larger numbers of weaker ones?

[calebrus]

The alternative means that fighting large groups of low level monsters is the same, not better or worse than fighting higher-power monsters. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Why should fighting smaller numbers of stronger monsters be preferable to larger numbers of weaker ones?

Because the system doesn't want you grinding your way to 20 on Kobolds and Goblins, that's why.
Bigger, scarier threats. Not more and more minion type mobs.

[Demonic Spoon]

Because the system doesn't want you grinding your way to 20 on Kobolds and Goblins, that's why.
Bigger, scarier threats. Not more and more minion type mobs.

You didn't actually explain why that's bad. The fact that there are way, way more low CR creatures than high CR creatures suggests that the system expects you to do exactly that - fighting lots of low CR creatures at high level.

[xyianth]

Because the system doesn't want you grinding your way to 20 on Kobolds and Goblins, that's why.
Bigger, scarier threats. Not more and more minion type mobs.

Why should the system care? What if you are trying to turn the tide of a war with the goblins and/or kobolds? It is not like a game of 'slaughter this group of kobolds' from 1-20 would actually be any fun at all. Let any DMs and players find that out on their own if they want to. Technically, you could kill 1 goblin over and over to reach 20 if you wanted. You might die of boredom before you get there though. :smallsmile:

[Rilak]

Why should the system care? What if you are trying to turn the tide of a war with the goblins and/or kobolds? It is not like a game of 'slaughter this group of kobolds' from 1-20 would actually be any fun at all. Let any DMs and players find that out on their own if they want to. Technically, you could kill 1 goblin over and over to reach 20 if you wanted. You might die of boredom before you get there though. :smallsmile:

This would be 1 kobold a day for 39 years.

[pwykersotz]

This would be 1 kobold a day for 39 years.

Actually, that's an interesting implication of this proposed adjustment. Right now you get exp based on what the monster awards with no adjustment by default, if you adjusted for the full difficulty upward, would the same proponents of this adjust downward if the encounter was absolutely trivial?

I would not, but I'm curious if anyone would and why.

(Wow, I think I overused the word 'adjust' in this post)

[xyianth]

Actually, that's an interesting implication of this proposed adjustment. Right now you get exp based on what the monster awards with no adjustment by default, if you adjusted for the full difficulty upward, would the same proponents of this adjust downward if the encounter was absolutely trivial?

I would not, but I'm curious if anyone would and why.

(Wow, I think I overused the word 'adjust' in this post)

I would not, since I think the increasing amount of experience needed to level kind of does this already.

[Rilak]

Actually, that's an interesting implication of this proposed adjustment. Right now you get exp based on what the monster awards with no adjustment by default, if you adjusted for the full difficulty upward, would the same proponents of this adjust downward if the encounter was absolutely trivial?

I would not, but I'm curious if anyone would and why.

(Wow, I think I overused the word 'adjust' in this post)

Right now, you ignore creatures much lower level than the PC's for calculating the difficulty of an encounter (no multiplier, no XP). So I guess there is some point to it (although it slightly slows down creating encounters).

[Psikerlord]

I award adjusted xp and have not seen any of the theoretical "players grouping up monsters on purpose" to get more xp. They still play cautiously ime. I award the adjusted xp because that's what those fights are effectively worth (plus I prefer faster leveling).

[AgentPaper]

I've been calculating XP rewards with multipliers and environmental modifiers taken into account as well. Doing all the calculations beforehand and ignoring any changes to the encounter based on player cleverness or stupidity is both fair and easier on the DM, since you don't need to recalculate the XP total in the middle of the game.

Honestly, even if I wanted slower leveling, I'd still do it this way, and just cut the final total in half. As-is, this allows big combats to feel rewarding, and has been giving my players about a level every other session, so I think it works out just fine.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I award adjusted xp and have not seen any of the theoretical "players grouping up monsters on purpose" to get more xp. They still play cautiously ime. I award the adjusted xp because that's what those fights are effectively worth (plus I prefer faster leveling).

The rules have blocks against metagaming. Just because your group isn't metagaming doesn't mean those blocks shouldn't exist.

XP is the most DM fiat thing in the game though. Everyone's free to do their own system, from strict by-the-numbers to arbitrary level awards.

[pwykersotz]

Interesting...so most people wouldn't nix lower xp amounts. That would imply we are all looking for faster leveling as opposed to a more simulationist notion of getting more proportional exp based on the effort needed to dispatch enemies as a whole. Good times.

[Demonic Spoon]

The rules have blocks against metagaming. Just because your group isn't metagaming doesn't mean those blocks shouldn't exist.

XP is the most DM fiat thing in the game though. Everyone's free to do their own system, from strict by-the-numbers to arbitrary level awards.

This particular block against metagaming encourages other forms of metagaming though - why should a party take on a problem involving kobolds when they could instead take on a problem involving higher-CR creatures?

[SharkForce]

Interesting...so most people wouldn't nix lower xp amounts. That would imply we are all looking for faster leveling as opposed to a more simulationist notion of getting more proportional exp based on the effort needed to dispatch enemies as a whole. Good times.

on the contrary, assuming xp is supposed to be gained in proportion to challenges faced, we're all saying "the challenge faced is considered to be equivalent to a certain value of xp, therefore the party should gain that much xp". if 2 of a given monster are as challenging as 4 of a different monster, shouldn't 2 of the first be worth as much xp as 4 of the second?

they've acknowledged it's a harder fight already in the encounter design rules. they just don't seem to think that xp should be awarded accordingly for some reason.

[kaoskonfety]

This didn't make any sense to me either. The only thing I could come up with is that it sort of makes sense if XP is a physical thing in the D&D universe. (as in something you literally absorb from fallen foes) If using that interpretation, the encounter XP is the simple summation of the XP released when the foes die, but the adjusted XP value is an estimate of how difficult the encounter is only.

I don't actually play under this interpretation, but it's what I would use as an explanation if I did.

Had a DM run with the whole "Murder is the source of your power" angle in a D&D game, the only EXP source for the PC's was killing (not "defeating enemies/ overcoming challenges" - just killing) - it was a Ravenloft game. It was pretty freaking grim/dark.

It works, but ya... the implications can range from "meh, its how it works" to "You feast on SOULS for POWER" - I prefer the later if that's the way you run with it.

[pwykersotz]

on the contrary, assuming xp is supposed to be gained in proportion to challenges faced, we're all saying "the challenge faced is considered to be equivalent to a certain value of xp, therefore the party should gain that much xp". if 2 of a given monster are as challenging as 4 of a different monster, shouldn't 2 of the first be worth as much xp as 4 of the second?

they've acknowledged it's a harder fight already in the encounter design rules. they just don't seem to think that xp should be awarded accordingly for some reason.

Yes, I understand that. It's not contrary to my point at all. Or maybe I just don't understand your point.

My point is that if a creature is worth its adjusted exp rather than its true value, it makes sense for it to scale downward as well. There was no mechanic implemented in the game to do this because neither of these extrapolations was expected to be used.

Basically, we're all biasing the calculations toward more exp without a counter-balance for situations where less would be awarded. I find that preferable, as apparently do most people.

[SharkForce]

Yes, I understand that. It's not contrary to my point at all. Or maybe I just don't understand your point.

My point is that if a creature is worth its adjusted exp rather than its true value, it makes sense for it to scale downward as well. There was no mechanic implemented in the game to do this because neither of these extrapolations was expected to be used.

Basically, we're all biasing the calculations toward more exp without a counter-balance for situations where less would be awarded. I find that preferable, as apparently do most people.

matter of perspective i guess.

if they manage to split up an encounter by their own cleverness, the encounter was just as hard, it's just that they managed to use planning, tactics, roleplaying, or whatever else, to defeat the difficult challenge in a way that didn't appear difficult.

[pwykersotz]

matter of perspective i guess.

if they manage to split up an encounter by their own cleverness, the encounter was just as hard, it's just that they managed to use planning, tactics, roleplaying, or whatever else, to defeat the difficult challenge in a way that didn't appear difficult.

See, I'm not even talking about that kind of thing. Players shouldn't be punished for cleverness. I'm talking about (to use an extreme example) a level 20 party that runs across a single Kobold. Should they get the 25 exp split four ways? It was so trivial as to not even be worth exp if you downscale it. So if the desire to scale exp accurately was devoid of bias, then it could be argued that 0 exp was earned. It could also be argued that such downscaling happens already with total exp values needing to increase as levels go up.

I was just curious how people here felt.

[Giant2005]

See, I'm not even talking about that kind of thing. Players shouldn't be punished for cleverness. I'm talking about (to use an extreme example) a level 20 party that runs across a single Kobold. Should they get the 25 exp split four ways? It was so trivial as to not even be worth exp if you downscale it. So if the desire to scale exp accurately was devoid of bias, then it could be argued that 0 exp was earned. It could also be argued that such downscaling happens already with total exp values needing to increase as levels go up.

I was just curious how people here felt.

The book does have rules that go both ways. That party of 8 that was facing only a single monster would get half of the xp that monster was normally worth (12.5xp in this case).

[pwykersotz]

The book does have rules that go both ways. That party of 8 that was facing only a single monster would get half of the xp that monster was normally worth (12.5xp in this case).

Yes, but that kind of scaling doesn't account for level. The only thing that might is the inflated exp cost it takes to reach each new level. That's what I was wondering about.

[AgentPaper]

See, I'm not even talking about that kind of thing. Players shouldn't be punished for cleverness. I'm talking about (to use an extreme example) a level 20 party that runs across a single Kobold. Should they get the 25 exp split four ways? It was so trivial as to not even be worth exp if you downscale it. So if the desire to scale exp accurately was devoid of bias, then it could be argued that 0 exp was earned. It could also be argued that such downscaling happens already with total exp values needing to increase as levels go up.

I was just curious how people here felt.

I wouldn't award XP for that, partly because it's no threat whatsoever, but mostly because it's not worth the hassle of noting down "+6.25 XP" for the party at that level. I would also not send a single kobold up against a level 20 party, ever, though. Which is why I don't account for reduced XP for very easy encounters, because generally they're not worth the time it would take to play them out. There's no need to think up special rules for when they happen because I simply don't have them happen.