D&D 5E Encounter Building: Revised XP Threshold by Character Level Table

[dave2008]

Sorry, I have diarrhea of the mouth ;.;

Well see that's just it, I think the encounter table works fine for the basic rules and for stock character options. At low levels you don't have to worry about things like perfect accuracy at 600 feet, bards/sorcs with eldritch blast, any class other than fighter with action surge, and so on. There are a couple of hybrid subclasses, but otherwise the classes tend to stick fairly well to their roles, so without feats or MC, I feel the base encounter table is right. Monsters are tuned for those kinds of PCs, and the challenge they represent is much more accurate; no twinned cure wounds, no quickened action surge EB spam, no pact-smites, etc.

Well, I think you could, largely, get away with a single table, but it would be for MC and Feat games.

Possibly, I've started work on a new table with another category. It could just make the DMG table conform to the new paradigm. That being said, i think the DMG table will need to be adjusted based on the outcome of your analysis in the last paragraph of your post.

See, I don't think so. The versatility added by feats and MC, as well as the increase in power, largely counter-acts the action economy hit.

I think a multiplier is still probably needed, it just might be different than the one in the DMG. A bit less aggressive lets say.

See, that's the issue is there needs to be a solid understanding of how access to new spell levels is going to affect the damage output and mitigation abilities of a party. A spell like fireball is going to be very effective at inflicting damage, and a spell like wall of stone is going to be good at mitigating it (in the sense that you can block creatures from using their actions to attack you by forcing them to maneuver around the wall), which is why the rate of increase needs to intensify as the levels climb.

I think I'm going to start working on getting those characters drawn up now and then see if I can't find the formulas for calculating the average damage of a spell with a given DC vs a known save bonus (I can't imagine it's too different from the hit% calculations, but I don't know how to account for criticals either, so, yay google!). New semester is about to start, and I'm a procrastinator, so I feel like this is something I can get done soonish in lieu of schoolwork, if you'd be interested in the data I come up with (probably an excel spreadsheet or a formatted text file).

I'm thinking I'm going to run the tests at lvls 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20, with Plvl +2 (solo), = (small group, 2 mobs), -2 (medium group, 4 mobs), and -8 (large group, 16 mobs). I think I'm going to have to look up MC builds too, and run a few of the more extreme combos as their own tests as well, probably pallock, BMbarb, and some kind of rogue MC, assassin shadow monk?

Damn your interesting and timely topic...

That would be great! Thank you for the offer, I look forward to what you come up with.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree, but I think the issue is not the adjective, but the definition provided for the adjective.

I think I now have a more clear understanding of your reluctance to switch out the labels, Dave.

Thanks.

 

[dave2008]

I think I now have a more clear understanding of your reluctance to switch out the labels, Dave.

Thanks.

Well, I guess I'm over it. I'm working on an update with new labels. I should have it posted tonight or tomorrow.

 

[ninjayeti]

The bigger problem I have with 5e encounter building is the default assumption that groups should be plowing through 6 to 8 of them per day.

Because the encounter system does completely break if you are running less than 6 encounters per long rest.

This.

People seem to ignore that the encounter ratings are in the context of 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per day. Yeah a high level party can plow through a Deadly encounter easily if they can blow all of their resources on that one fight. But run that same encounter after 5-7 other fights when they are low on resources and suddenly a TPK is a real possibility.

The problem isn't the table IMHO - the problem is people ignore the 6-8 encounters part.

 

[dave2008]

This.

People seem to ignore that the encounter ratings are in the context of 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per day. Yeah a high level party can plow through a Deadly encounter easily if they can blow all of their resources on that one fight. But run that same encounter after 5-7 other fights when they are low on resources and suddenly a TPK is a real possibility.

The problem isn't the table IMHO - the problem is people ignore the 6-8 encounters part.

Somewhat true. But some people don't want to run 6-8 encounters. In my revised guidelines I plan to more specifically describe the relationship between the encounter table and number of encounters.

 

[cooperjer]

There's a lot of ideas to process over the past 24 hours on this thread. A couple notes came to mind while reading.

1. The DMG daily XP recommendation (DRXP), to my understanding, does not include the multipliers used for groups of enemies.
a. This ties to leveling speed, but in my game I give levels based on completion of a dungeon.

2. Since the daily XP does not include a difficulty for a quantity of enemies in an encounter then a percent value of the DRXP for an encounter can provide some insight into the difficulty of an encounter given in as a numerical value rather than a subjective adjective.
a. This ties back to what [MENTION=6855137]l0lzero[/MENTION] suggested by using the CR XP value without multipliers, but also takes it one step further by removing the subjective indicator of encounter difficulty.
b. In my head I see the heading to each column have an adjective with a parenthesis showing a range of DRXP used for that adjective.
c. As an example Easy (8% to 10%), or Medium (11% to 13%), etc.

3. Single monster encounters should still have a multiplier on them.
a. As an example, in last Wednesdays AL game a group of 8 adventures brought a purple worm to 5 HP in a little over 2 rounds.
b. Later, in Storm Kings Thunder, when we're supposed to run and let the giant fight the dragon, we're not going to be scared.

4. The DM would benefit by knowing approximately how much damage is done by their PCs in a round.
a. This would help the DM plan single NPC encounters and possibly multiple NPC encounters.
b. From my personal experience a 5th level character dishes out between 15 and 20 points of damage per turn.
c. My current guess is that at level 8 characters dish out 18 to 23 points per turn.

In my encounter design I look at both the adjective listed for the encounter using the DMG guidelines for encounter calculation and the percent of DRXP. I feel both factors are needed to help a DM get a good idea how the encounter will resolve.

One additional factor that has not been discussed is, "Where in the day are the characters with respect to their DRXP?" In the dungeon design, I also sum the percent of DRXP from all previous encounters to get an idea of what risk the characters may have when they run into the new encounter. Admittedly, the players to not approach each encounter in order on my spreadsheet, but if they did then I would know what risk they my have. I feel this is the final factor that a DM should have in encounter design. How much of the DRXP has been consumed to that point prior to the encounter.

I think I stated this earlier in this thread, but it is related. The resource consumption on each character in not the same for each encounter. Therefore, there should be a recommended limit of resource consumption or DRXP. My current guess is 80% to 90%. I feel if a group consumed 100% of their DRXP then the result would be TPK.

 

[dave2008]

There's a lot of ideas to process over the past 24 hours on this thread. A couple notes came to mind while reading.

1. The DMG daily XP recommendation (DRXP), to my understanding, does not include the multipliers used for groups of enemies.
a. This ties to leveling speed, but in my game I give levels based on completion of a dungeon.

2. Since the daily XP does not include a difficulty for a quantity of enemies in an encounter then a percent value of the DRXP for an encounter can provide some insight into the difficulty of an encounter given in as a numerical value rather than a subjective adjective.
a. This ties back to what [MENTION=6855137]l0lzero[/MENTION] suggested by using the CR XP value without multipliers, but also takes it one step further by removing the subjective indicator of encounter difficulty.
b. In my head I see the heading to each column have an adjective with a parenthesis showing a range of DRXP used for that adjective.
c. As an example Easy (8% to 10%), or Medium (11% to 13%), etc.

3. Single monster encounters should still have a multiplier on them.
a. As an example, in last Wednesdays AL game a group of 8 adventures brought a purple worm to 5 HP in a little over 2 rounds.
b. Later, in Storm Kings Thunder, when we're supposed to run and let the giant fight the dragon, we're not going to be scared.

4. The DM would benefit by knowing approximately how much damage is done by their PCs in a round.
a. This would help the DM plan single NPC encounters and possibly multiple NPC encounters.
b. From my personal experience a 5th level character dishes out between 15 and 20 points of damage per turn.
c. My current guess is that at level 8 characters dish out 18 to 23 points per turn.

In my encounter design I look at both the adjective listed for the encounter using the DMG guidelines for encounter calculation and the percent of DRXP. I feel both factors are needed to help a DM get a good idea how the encounter will resolve.

One additional factor that has not been discussed is, "Where in the day are the characters with respect to their DRXP?" In the dungeon design, I also sum the percent of DRXP from all previous encounters to get an idea of what risk the characters may have when they run into the new encounter. Admittedly, the players to not approach each encounter in order on my spreadsheet, but if they did then I would know what risk they my have. I feel this is the final factor that a DM should have in encounter design. How much of the DRXP has been consumed to that point prior to the encounter.

I think I stated this earlier in this thread, but it is related. The resource consumption on each character in not the same for each encounter. Therefore, there should be a recommended limit of resource consumption or DRXP. My current guess is 80% to 90%. I feel if a group consumed 100% of their DRXP then the result would be TPK.

Thanks for the insight. I do think relating to DRXP is important, but I haven't decided how yet. Luckily this is working guide and we can make large and wholesale changes as needed. I am going to run through my latest thought on the encounter table, then the multiplier table, and then DRXP. Depending on that I may go back and revise everything again.

 

[dave2008]

I have updated the OP with two new tables and some descriptive text. I believe this is moving in the right direction. Let me know what you think.

 

[Andrew Hamilton]

Necroing this as I'm curious if you've continued working on this privately. I think your revised tables have been quite helpful and I'm interested in seeing your approach to the multiplier.

My two cents is that the monster multiplier should potentially be based off of the ratio of number of monsters vs number of players rather than a static number.
i.e. If there are 1.5x more monsters than players then modify XP by 2x. Something of that nature.

Would love to see more on this.

 

[dave2008]

Necroing this as I'm curious if you've continued working on this privately. I think your revised tables have been quite helpful and I'm interested in seeing your approach to the multiplier.

My two cents is that the monster multiplier should potentially be based off of the ratio of number of monsters vs number of players rather than a static number.
i.e. If there are 1.5x more monsters than players then modify XP by 2x. Something of that nature.

Would love to see more on this.

I have worked on it a little, and I have compiled some additional information done by others, but nothing that I am ready to post. I've been focusing on my other threads. I do plan on getting back to this at some point though.

I like your idea, just sure of the ratio yet.