I just started a 1st level Half-Orc Barbarian and I heard about the optional cleave rule in the DMG.
If your player characters regularly fight hordes of lower-level monsters, consider using this optional rule to help speed up such fights.
When a melee attack reduces an undamaged creature to 0 hit points, any excess damage from that attack might carry over to another creature nearby. The attacker targets another creature within reach and, if the original attack roll can hit it, applies any remaining damage to it. If that creature was undamaged and is likewise reduced to 0 hit points, repeat this process, carrying over the remaining damage until there are no valid targets, or until the damage carried over fails to reduce an undamaged creature to 0 hit points.
It sounded pretty cool and it makes sense that a big attack against a 6 hp goblin might continue through to another creature. But then I thought it through some more, a great axe wielding half-orc, with good rolls, can crit into the 30s at 1st level. If he was surrounded by a bunch of low level enemies on a crit he could take down 3-5 in one blow. That seems kind of ridiculous for a 1st level character.
The written intent seems to be that this option is mainly for higher level characters fighting lowER level monsters.
Anyone have any experience using this with low level characters?
If your first level half orc barbarian crits while surrounded by five enemies AND rolls 30+ damage? That's probably a once-in-a-character's-lifetime occurrence, so just let them cut the goblins all down, earn a sweet nickname, and feel like a badass for the rest of their life.
Its a good optional rule, because its hard to really exploit, but makes characters feel really powerful and awesome when the stars align and they get great rolls in the face of being outnumbered. Also, speeds up combats with lots of enemies, which is always a plus. I approve.
There are some things that feel very powerful when you are at the extreme low end of the level spectrum. And yes, it's possible some of these features really are OP for 1st level, but the problem tends to correct itself as the story goes on. Level 1 characters are fragile. Let them have their epic moments where they can find them.
Something that makes "OP" less relevant is doling out XP by combat difficulty, rather than the default creature multiplier.
If cleaving regularly results in "fish in a barrel" situations, (which it shouldn't), then those kinds of encounters simply aren't worth as much experience. Otherwise, it's a rare occurrence, and should be rewarded as such.
However, if you've surrounded the 1st level Half-Orc Barbarian with 3-5 melee goblins, you've already created a dangerous situation for everyone. 3-5 Goblins represents potentially 3d6+6 to 5d6+10 damage per round, which is more than enough to drop them in a single round.
What "Cleave" effectively does is allows a bunch of low level minions to be treated like a "loose swarm" for melee attackers, combining their HP into a single "virtual" monster.
It also gives melee attackers a kind of "AOE" option, which they normally may not have access to.
Something that makes "OP" less relevant is doling out XP by combat difficulty, rather than the default creature multiplier.
Not sure what you are referring to here. XP received does not get modified. 6 goblins give the same XP regardless of if you fight them 1 at a time or all at once. But fighting them all at once will increase the difficulty.
Since it seems like you are arguing that they should give less experience if you can kill 6 in 1 attack, it doesn't make sense to start that argument by saying they should multiply XP by difficulty (which will 100% of the time result in more XP when fighting multiple enemies).
Anyway, XP balances out as they level up and require more XP per level. Level 1 characters are very likely to level from 1 or 2 battles, then require a dozen more to get to level 3.
Something that makes "OP" less relevant is doling out XP by combat difficulty, rather than the default creature multiplier.
Not sure what you are referring to here. XP received does not get modified. 6 goblins give the same XP regardless of if you fight them 1 at a time or all at once. But fighting them all at once will increase the difficulty.
Since it seems like you are arguing that they should give less experience if you can kill 6 in 1 attack, it doesn't make sense to start that argument by saying they should multiply XP by difficulty (which will 100% of the time result in more XP when fighting multiple enemies).
Anyway, XP balances out as they level up and require more XP per level. Level 1 characters are very likely to level from 1 or 2 battles, then require a dozen more to get to level 3.
If you look in the Dungeon Master's Guide under "Creating Adventures", you will find the "Encounter Multiplier" for large numbers of monsters.
Edit: Oh, is that multiplier not intended to translate to awarded Experience?
Something that makes "OP" less relevant is doling out XP by combat difficulty, rather than the default creature multiplier.
Not sure what you are referring to here. XP received does not get modified. 6 goblins give the same XP regardless of if you fight them 1 at a time or all at once. But fighting them all at once will increase the difficulty.
Since it seems like you are arguing that they should give less experience if you can kill 6 in 1 attack, it doesn't make sense to start that argument by saying they should multiply XP by difficulty (which will 100% of the time result in more XP when fighting multiple enemies).
Anyway, XP balances out as they level up and require more XP per level. Level 1 characters are very likely to level from 1 or 2 battles, then require a dozen more to get to level 3.
If you look in the Dungeon Master's Guide under "Creating Adventures", you will find the "Encounter Multiplier" for large numbers of monsters.
As I recall, that modifier is used to balance encounters using the party's daily XP budget, and is not applied to the actual experience gained.
Edit: Found it. "For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty."
As I recall, that modifier is used to balance encounters using the party's daily XP budget, and is not applied to the actual experience gained.
Edit: Found it. "For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty."
Ah, so. Yeah, I read that piece, but was separating "what the monsters are worth in terms of XP" from "What an encounter is worth in terms of XP". I've been awarding my players based on my own calculation of encounter difficulty, rather than the sum of the monster experience, specifically to avoid the issue of players walking through a wall of weak mobs, or being slaughtered by a dozen CR0 creatures at low levels. (Hypothetically, a single Fireball could take out a mob of Goblins for 2600xp, which would double a 5th level character's experience instantly.)
If the players wrap up an encounter with ease, I treat it as an "Easy" encounter, whereas if multiple players fall unconscious, I treat it as "Deadly", and then award experience based on what that represents for their level. After that, I'll stack on flat bonuses for important factors, such as cleverness or learning something important in the process.
(Hypothetically, a single Fireball could take out a mob of Goblins for 2600xp, which would double a 5th level character's experience instantly.)
I have a few issues with this hypothetical:
It requires 52 goblins to be perfectly packed into a fireball's blast radius, which would otherwise on average only hit 4-8 creatures at a time.
A level 5 character needs 6500 experience to have reached level 5.
Experience is divided across the party, so the level 5 spellcaster will only get that experience if they were alone. If they were in a party of 4, they would earn 650 experience.
52 goblins is way over double deadly for a level 5 party, probably on account of that they will never conveniently gather together and wait to die.
5. If you are in a situation to safely lob fireballs into a pit seething with trapped goblins... that’s probably not a combat, maybe more like an environmental puzzle you’re solving to traverse the pit safely. No need to award full combat Xp for executing prisoners/killing trivial monsters that pose no threat to you.
Come on, seriously?... The point of the hypothetical is to state a hyperbolic scenario that was never meant to be taken as realistic, and is secondary to the point of the post. Please don't waste effort on the trimmings.
The point is that awarding experience by linearly adding the value in monster statblocks is not a good method of rewarding player participation. A handful of clever goblins who know how to use their environment represent a much greater effective CR than the mechanically equivalent training dummy version. If you need a better example to replace the Fireball versus Goblins, then use the standard mob of zombies versus a 5th level Cleric's Destroy Undead feature. (30ft radius). Hordes of zombies packed together is a genre stereotype, regardless of tactical absurdity.
As Chicken_Champ mentioned, there is a practical overlap between "Combat" and "Environmental Puzzles", and that overlap can be very fluid. If "Cleaving" introduces a situation that seems to be "OP", then treat it like an "Environmental Puzzle", and award experience accordingly, even if it's officially a combat.
What seems like a realistic application of cleave for a relatively unexperienced warrior to me would be to allow the damage to apply to one adjacent creature, and maybe just the normal damage, in my mind crits are crits because they hit a vital spot more than you just swung extra hard. I guess I was dealing in a pretty hypothetical situation for a 1st level imagining them to be surrounded by 5 goblins, especially considering battlefield positioning where some may stay ranged and others may go after other party members. So practically speaking it doesn't sound like a massive crit would likely end up with some bizarre 360 degree pirouette of death.
Come on, seriously?... The point of the hypothetical is to state a hyperbolic scenario that was never meant to be taken as realistic, and is secondary to the point of the post. Please don't waste effort on the trimmings.
I mean, 2 of of the trimmings was how 10% ≠ 100%. If basic math is secondary to your point, then your points kind of lose credibility.
But please do go on about how players defeating a tough battle should be punished with reduced experience.
I mean, 2 of of the trimmings was how 10% ≠ 100%. If basic math is secondary to your point, then your points kind of lose credibility.
But please do go on about how players defeating a tough battle should be punished with reduced experience.
By focusing on the irrelevant parts, rather than considering alterative valid scenarios, which I later provided, you've missed the message of my posts entirely.
(1) Yes. I made a mistake consulting the experience by level chart. The hypothetical only reflected a single level of experience gain from 4th to 5th level. That is still significant.
(2) Your mention of shared experience is irrelevant. A single action can have a disproportionate impact on experience. Maybe said Wizard is playing 1-on-1 with the DM, maybe not. Maybe the party consists of 6 Wizards all doing silly things like this, which brings us back to square one with more moving parts.
(3) I specifically outlined how I award more experience based on the "toughness" of the battle, and how I determined that metric.
(4) If a character can easily and repeatably kill 6 monsters with a single swing, then it wasn't a tougher battle, it was an easier one. If it's an uncommon occurrence, then it's a non-issue. Getting lucky is just part of the game.
Circumstance plays a major role in the difficulty of an encounter. Monster CR and listed XP is only part of the picture.
The game is balanced with certain assumptions, and if the players/DM don't adhere to those assumptions, the balance breaks. For example, a team of pyromaniacs in a plant heavy game. Or, a DM might create a scenario with an overlooked loophole that they didn't intend for the players to actually attempt to resolve. Experienced DMs know well enough to avoid these traps, but approaching experience differently also provides a solution that is sensitive to the gaming experience itself.
I just started a 1st level Half-Orc Barbarian and I heard about the optional cleave rule in the DMG.
It sounded pretty cool and it makes sense that a big attack against a 6 hp goblin might continue through to another creature. But then I thought it through some more, a great axe wielding half-orc, with good rolls, can crit into the 30s at 1st level. If he was surrounded by a bunch of low level enemies on a crit he could take down 3-5 in one blow. That seems kind of ridiculous for a 1st level character.
The written intent seems to be that this option is mainly for higher level characters fighting lowER level monsters.
Anyone have any experience using this with low level characters?
If your first level half orc barbarian crits while surrounded by five enemies AND rolls 30+ damage? That's probably a once-in-a-character's-lifetime occurrence, so just let them cut the goblins all down, earn a sweet nickname, and feel like a badass for the rest of their life.
Its a good optional rule, because its hard to really exploit, but makes characters feel really powerful and awesome when the stars align and they get great rolls in the face of being outnumbered. Also, speeds up combats with lots of enemies, which is always a plus. I approve.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There are some things that feel very powerful when you are at the extreme low end of the level spectrum. And yes, it's possible some of these features really are OP for 1st level, but the problem tends to correct itself as the story goes on. Level 1 characters are fragile. Let them have their epic moments where they can find them.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Something that makes "OP" less relevant is doling out XP by combat difficulty, rather than the default creature multiplier.
If cleaving regularly results in "fish in a barrel" situations, (which it shouldn't), then those kinds of encounters simply aren't worth as much experience. Otherwise, it's a rare occurrence, and should be rewarded as such.
However, if you've surrounded the 1st level Half-Orc Barbarian with 3-5 melee goblins, you've already created a dangerous situation for everyone. 3-5 Goblins represents potentially 3d6+6 to 5d6+10 damage per round, which is more than enough to drop them in a single round.
What "Cleave" effectively does is allows a bunch of low level minions to be treated like a "loose swarm" for melee attackers, combining their HP into a single "virtual" monster.
It also gives melee attackers a kind of "AOE" option, which they normally may not have access to.
Not sure what you are referring to here. XP received does not get modified. 6 goblins give the same XP regardless of if you fight them 1 at a time or all at once. But fighting them all at once will increase the difficulty.
Since it seems like you are arguing that they should give less experience if you can kill 6 in 1 attack, it doesn't make sense to start that argument by saying they should multiply XP by difficulty (which will 100% of the time result in more XP when fighting multiple enemies).
Anyway, XP balances out as they level up and require more XP per level. Level 1 characters are very likely to level from 1 or 2 battles, then require a dozen more to get to level 3.
If you look in the Dungeon Master's Guide under "Creating Adventures", you will find the "Encounter Multiplier" for large numbers of monsters.
Edit: Oh, is that multiplier not intended to translate to awarded Experience?
As I recall, that modifier is used to balance encounters using the party's daily XP budget, and is not applied to the actual experience gained.
Edit: Found it. "For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty."
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
Nope, only for calculating difficulty. Awarded experience is always just the creatures' base XP divided by the party.
Ah, so. Yeah, I read that piece, but was separating "what the monsters are worth in terms of XP" from "What an encounter is worth in terms of XP". I've been awarding my players based on my own calculation of encounter difficulty, rather than the sum of the monster experience, specifically to avoid the issue of players walking through a wall of weak mobs, or being slaughtered by a dozen CR0 creatures at low levels. (Hypothetically, a single Fireball could take out a mob of Goblins for 2600xp, which would double a 5th level character's experience instantly.)
If the players wrap up an encounter with ease, I treat it as an "Easy" encounter, whereas if multiple players fall unconscious, I treat it as "Deadly", and then award experience based on what that represents for their level. After that, I'll stack on flat bonuses for important factors, such as cleverness or learning something important in the process.
I have a few issues with this hypothetical:
5. If you are in a situation to safely lob fireballs into a pit seething with trapped goblins... that’s probably not a combat, maybe more like an environmental puzzle you’re solving to traverse the pit safely. No need to award full combat Xp for executing prisoners/killing trivial monsters that pose no threat to you.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Come on, seriously?... The point of the hypothetical is to state a hyperbolic scenario that was never meant to be taken as realistic, and is secondary to the point of the post. Please don't waste effort on the trimmings.
The point is that awarding experience by linearly adding the value in monster statblocks is not a good method of rewarding player participation. A handful of clever goblins who know how to use their environment represent a much greater effective CR than the mechanically equivalent training dummy version. If you need a better example to replace the Fireball versus Goblins, then use the standard mob of zombies versus a 5th level Cleric's Destroy Undead feature. (30ft radius). Hordes of zombies packed together is a genre stereotype, regardless of tactical absurdity.
As Chicken_Champ mentioned, there is a practical overlap between "Combat" and "Environmental Puzzles", and that overlap can be very fluid. If "Cleaving" introduces a situation that seems to be "OP", then treat it like an "Environmental Puzzle", and award experience accordingly, even if it's officially a combat.
What seems like a realistic application of cleave for a relatively unexperienced warrior to me would be to allow the damage to apply to one adjacent creature, and maybe just the normal damage, in my mind crits are crits because they hit a vital spot more than you just swung extra hard. I guess I was dealing in a pretty hypothetical situation for a 1st level imagining them to be surrounded by 5 goblins, especially considering battlefield positioning where some may stay ranged and others may go after other party members. So practically speaking it doesn't sound like a massive crit would likely end up with some bizarre 360 degree pirouette of death.
I mean, 2 of of the trimmings was how 10% ≠ 100%. If basic math is secondary to your point, then your points kind of lose credibility.
But please do go on about how players defeating a tough battle should be punished with reduced experience.
By focusing on the irrelevant parts, rather than considering alterative valid scenarios, which I later provided, you've missed the message of my posts entirely.
(1) Yes. I made a mistake consulting the experience by level chart. The hypothetical only reflected a single level of experience gain from 4th to 5th level. That is still significant.
(2) Your mention of shared experience is irrelevant. A single action can have a disproportionate impact on experience. Maybe said Wizard is playing 1-on-1 with the DM, maybe not. Maybe the party consists of 6 Wizards all doing silly things like this, which brings us back to square one with more moving parts.
(3) I specifically outlined how I award more experience based on the "toughness" of the battle, and how I determined that metric.
(4) If a character can easily and repeatably kill 6 monsters with a single swing, then it wasn't a tougher battle, it was an easier one. If it's an uncommon occurrence, then it's a non-issue. Getting lucky is just part of the game.
Circumstance plays a major role in the difficulty of an encounter. Monster CR and listed XP is only part of the picture.
The game is balanced with certain assumptions, and if the players/DM don't adhere to those assumptions, the balance breaks. For example, a team of pyromaniacs in a plant heavy game. Or, a DM might create a scenario with an overlooked loophole that they didn't intend for the players to actually attempt to resolve. Experienced DMs know well enough to avoid these traps, but approaching experience differently also provides a solution that is sensitive to the gaming experience itself.