Divide by 4. Personally, I round up whenever there’s a fraction, don’t know what others do.
As an aside, that’s one of the ways to stop players from adopting pets and NPCs to help with the fighting. More people on the team means the xp pie gets sliced into smaller pieces.
You divide by 4. Take the total XP for the encounter - which involves adding the XP for each creature and then multiplying by a scaling factor based on how many creatures are in the fight. e.g. A single 100xp creature is typically much easier than 4x 25xp creatures so the 4 x25xp encounter has a multiplier to the total XP awarded. Once you have the total XP for the encounter you divide it by the total number of creatures contributing to the fight which is (PCs + allied NPCs) - so allies will make fights easier but reduces the total XP awarded/player.
This is how it traditionally works when leveling using XP.
That said, I don't use XP for leveling anymore and have moved over exclusively to milestones. Awarding levels when the characters have done enough and it seems appropriate based on the story and likely upcoming encounters. This saves a lot of time and effort on math but does leave the players wondering how much more they need to do to level. You could mix the two a bit to give the players an idea of how they are progressing by giving 1/4 or 1/2 milestones - they don't do anything mechanically but do give the players an idea of how much more content they might need to cover before they level again (which is all XP actually does except at a much more detailed level).
I also recommend rounding up... When I first started I did the math very precisely, although I did round up from fractions. But over time it just made it harder to track the exact XP level of my players. I like to reward a little extra XP in combat anyway, which I justify as representing the XP they earned for harder-to-track out-of-combat actions.
Agreeing with the others who take a more free-style approach to XP. How experience is awarded should depend on the type of campaign.
Encounter Difficulty is much more than the sum of the monster stat blocks. If the enemy are played intelligently, even trivial monsters can be deadly. If the party hasn't had a chance to rest, then they could be at a significant disadvantage. If the party has been stripped of all of their equipment, then the town guards might be much more level appropriate. Etc... I like to award players according to their how much they've struggled, and how clever they were in the attempt, rather than according to the monster's "bounty".
If I were running a published adventure, then I would stick with Milestone, so that all of the content remains relevant.
If I were running an open-ended open-world campaign, then I would let XP be earned more "by the book" to give the players more control over pacing.
If I were running a time-limited campaign, I would plan a leveling schedule, and try to give the players appropriate encounters to feel like they've earned their progress. (E.g. If I want the campaign to last 2 years, and I want the party to reach level 14, then that could mean leveling every session, or every 4 sessions, depending on how frequently we meet, regardless of in-game activity.)
TL;DR
RAW is a guide for consistant play. Splitting the listed Monster XP is the "default" method, but it may not be what is best for you and your group.
I wouldn't think it makes sense to have a beastmaster's pet dilute the xp awards. Anything baked into the character class like that is just...part of the character.
You divide by 4. Take the total XP for the encounter - which involves adding the XP for each creature and then multiplying by a scaling factor based on how many creatures are in the fight. e.g. A single 100xp creature is typically much easier than 4x 25xp creatures so the 4 x25xp encounter has a multiplier to the total XP awarded. Once you have the total XP for the encounter you divide it by the total number of creatures contributing to the fight which is (PCs + allied NPCs) - so allies will make fights easier but reduces the total XP awarded/player.
I thought the scaling factor did NOT affect the actual XP award. It was just for calculating how difficult (one of those four categories) an encounter was. IE: it was just to help a DM with pacing, if they wanted some guidelines on how tough to make different encounters.
Slightly related question: how does everyone approach giving out XP if the monster flees? Is a win a win, so XP is handed out, or does it not really count as defeating the monster, so XP is withheld? I can think of valid arguments for each side. For example, if the PCs beat the stuffing out of something and it barely escapes with its life, I would be inclined to award XP. If, on the other hand, they enemies flee immediately after a single one is killed (assuming it makes sense, narratively, for them to do so), I would not hand out XP. Is there a ruling on this somewhere, or is it the DM's prerogative?
IMO, XP should be awarded for creatures that are defeated. If an enemy loses the will to fight, they are defeated. If the enemy is running away to alert their friends to make a concerted stand, they are not defeated.
IMO, XP should be awarded for creatures that are defeated. If an enemy loses the will to fight, they are defeated. If the enemy is running away to alert their friends to make a concerted stand, they are not defeated.
Agreed. There’s a difference between fleeing and retreating to fight another day
Agreeing. However, there is still plenty of room for "Performance XP". If the battle was hard fought, but the enemy still got away, then the players might appreciate some token experience for cleverness.
I try to give bonus experience regardless of the outcome to highlight and reward memorable moments.
Seems like you'd learn just as much--if not more--from a "loss" as opposed to a win. Additionally, treating xp as being more about their namesake moves the game away from the players being "rewarded" with xp. The whole concept of a DM (or the game in general) "rewarding" players just rankles me. We're playing a game, we're having fun, there's no competition, it's not a computer game.
That said, I'm hard-pressed to recall an encounter where the PCs didn't outright "win" in every situation they were capable of succeeding at. I guess me and my groups are old people and aren't regularly making the encounters challenging enough? :)
Seems like you'd learn just as much--if not more--from a "loss" as opposed to a win. Additionally, treating xp as being more about their namesake moves the game away from the players being "rewarded" with xp. The whole concept of a DM (or the game in general) "rewarding" players just rankles me. We're playing a game, we're having fun, there's no competition, it's not a computer game.
That said, I'm hard-pressed to recall an encounter where the PCs didn't outright "win" in every situation they were capable of succeeding at. I guess me and my groups are old people and aren't regularly making the encounters challenging enough? :)
I believe it's the Apocalypse game system (and probably some other ones) where players actually gain experience each time they fail a check. It works well in those games because they're not really combat-oriented, so the exact same thing wouldn't really work for D&D, but I think it does make sense to reward XP for failure.
Good morning all ☀️
If 4 of my players kill a creature w/ 50 XP
Do I Award all of them 50 XP each or divide by 4?
Divide by 4. Personally, I round up whenever there’s a fraction, don’t know what others do.
As an aside, that’s one of the ways to stop players from adopting pets and NPCs to help with the fighting. More people on the team means the xp pie gets sliced into smaller pieces.
You divide by 4. Take the total XP for the encounter - which involves adding the XP for each creature and then multiplying by a scaling factor based on how many creatures are in the fight. e.g. A single 100xp creature is typically much easier than 4x 25xp creatures so the 4 x25xp encounter has a multiplier to the total XP awarded. Once you have the total XP for the encounter you divide it by the total number of creatures contributing to the fight which is (PCs + allied NPCs) - so allies will make fights easier but reduces the total XP awarded/player.
This is how it traditionally works when leveling using XP.
That said, I don't use XP for leveling anymore and have moved over exclusively to milestones. Awarding levels when the characters have done enough and it seems appropriate based on the story and likely upcoming encounters. This saves a lot of time and effort on math but does leave the players wondering how much more they need to do to level. You could mix the two a bit to give the players an idea of how they are progressing by giving 1/4 or 1/2 milestones - they don't do anything mechanically but do give the players an idea of how much more content they might need to cover before they level again (which is all XP actually does except at a much more detailed level).
I also recommend rounding up... When I first started I did the math very precisely, although I did round up from fractions. But over time it just made it harder to track the exact XP level of my players. I like to reward a little extra XP in combat anyway, which I justify as representing the XP they earned for harder-to-track out-of-combat actions.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Agreeing with the others who take a more free-style approach to XP. How experience is awarded should depend on the type of campaign.
Encounter Difficulty is much more than the sum of the monster stat blocks. If the enemy are played intelligently, even trivial monsters can be deadly. If the party hasn't had a chance to rest, then they could be at a significant disadvantage. If the party has been stripped of all of their equipment, then the town guards might be much more level appropriate. Etc... I like to award players according to their how much they've struggled, and how clever they were in the attempt, rather than according to the monster's "bounty".
If I were running a published adventure, then I would stick with Milestone, so that all of the content remains relevant.
If I were running an open-ended open-world campaign, then I would let XP be earned more "by the book" to give the players more control over pacing.
If I were running a time-limited campaign, I would plan a leveling schedule, and try to give the players appropriate encounters to feel like they've earned their progress. (E.g. If I want the campaign to last 2 years, and I want the party to reach level 14, then that could mean leveling every session, or every 4 sessions, depending on how frequently we meet, regardless of in-game activity.)
TL;DR
RAW is a guide for consistant play. Splitting the listed Monster XP is the "default" method, but it may not be what is best for you and your group.
I wouldn't think it makes sense to have a beastmaster's pet dilute the xp awards. Anything baked into the character class like that is just...part of the character.
I thought the scaling factor did NOT affect the actual XP award. It was just for calculating how difficult (one of those four categories) an encounter was. IE: it was just to help a DM with pacing, if they wanted some guidelines on how tough to make different encounters.
Slightly related question: how does everyone approach giving out XP if the monster flees? Is a win a win, so XP is handed out, or does it not really count as defeating the monster, so XP is withheld? I can think of valid arguments for each side. For example, if the PCs beat the stuffing out of something and it barely escapes with its life, I would be inclined to award XP. If, on the other hand, they enemies flee immediately after a single one is killed (assuming it makes sense, narratively, for them to do so), I would not hand out XP. Is there a ruling on this somewhere, or is it the DM's prerogative?
IMO, XP should be awarded for creatures that are defeated. If an enemy loses the will to fight, they are defeated. If the enemy is running away to alert their friends to make a concerted stand, they are not defeated.
Agreed. There’s a difference between fleeing and retreating to fight another day
Agreeing. However, there is still plenty of room for "Performance XP". If the battle was hard fought, but the enemy still got away, then the players might appreciate some token experience for cleverness.
I try to give bonus experience regardless of the outcome to highlight and reward memorable moments.
Seems like you'd learn just as much--if not more--from a "loss" as opposed to a win. Additionally, treating xp as being more about their namesake moves the game away from the players being "rewarded" with xp. The whole concept of a DM (or the game in general) "rewarding" players just rankles me. We're playing a game, we're having fun, there's no competition, it's not a computer game.
That said, I'm hard-pressed to recall an encounter where the PCs didn't outright "win" in every situation they were capable of succeeding at. I guess me and my groups are old people and aren't regularly making the encounters challenging enough? :)
I believe it's the Apocalypse game system (and probably some other ones) where players actually gain experience each time they fail a check. It works well in those games because they're not really combat-oriented, so the exact same thing wouldn't really work for D&D, but I think it does make sense to reward XP for failure.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium