Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RendakorRahn 09-21-07, 10:43 AM	In one of my recent sessions, I had a quasit attack the players while they were engaged with other mobs. Once the more durable foes were defeated (or when the quasit took substantial damage) it turned invis and fled to the next group. 4 encounters later, they finally kill it, and only then did I award them experience for it. One of my players claims they should have gotten xp every time it fled, since I've awarded xp even if PCs dont finish off dying monsters. His arguement is that the quasit made the other fights harder, and thus they deserve more xp. I ruled that they hadnt "overcome" the quasit the first few times, so no xp. Was I right?
Kragg Bonemeal 09-21-07, 11:00 AM	The DM is always right. That said, I would have given maybe 1/2 XP for Quasit at each "flee" encounter even though I knew it would be a recurring obstacle. Why? They "over came" it each time or they'd still be fighting it now, or dead. It's invisible poison tail made each encounter tougher because casters had to watch out for sneak attacks, fighters were poisoned so tanking was harder, etc. You are setting up the "must die for xp" scenario that will lead them to knifing every unconscious goon and thug, fireballing whole goblin villages to get the last gobbo warrior that attacked the caravan on the road, etc. If it must die to be "over come", everything must die. Large scale Belkar-like activities abound.
RendakorRahn 09-21-07, 11:21 AM	1/2 xp sounds fair enough, guess thats what I'll do in the future. (Though my real mistake was telling them they didnt get xp for it...)
Myers 09-21-07, 11:35 AM	Yeah as mentioned XP should be awarded regardless of the kill. Say the players find a way to sneak around or avoid a monster altogether. Really I think how much XP is given should be based more on how it works towards accomplishing the current goal. If say, the players manage to retrieve the item they came for from a group of orcs by sneaking past or immobilizing the orcs without harming a single one, I would still grant full XP for each orc they dodged. Now on the other hand, if the same group of orcs were about to attack the city, and they ran or hid, I would not grant any XP.
Some_call_me_Tim 09-21-07, 11:37 AM	After reading the thread title, I thought to myself, "Of course they get xp for fleeing monsters, you stingy DM." Alas, this wasn't of those post where it was so simple as a DM trying to screw their players out of a handful of xp. You did, in fact reward them for overcoming the quasit, in the last encounter. If they had killed him in the first encounter they would have gotten the same amount of xp. They didn't really 'overcome' the quasit, merely caused it to retreat to use advantage of it's abilities. As long as the quasit received no outside help, such as healing, buffing, et cetera, and you allowed for the possibility that they could try and track it down before the next encounter, I see no reason to award additional xp. You could throw an xp bonus their way, maybe 50% of the what the quasit was normally worth, but that would be entirely optional and should definitely be less than actually defeating the quasit four times.
Sildatorak 09-21-07, 12:36 PM	In this case, the quasit is just using its abilities wisely. It isn't the case of the quasit fleeing, but making a tactical withdrawal. It hasn't ended its encounter with the PCs at that point; it has just fallen back.
DMCuindless 09-21-07, 01:28 PM	In this case, the quasit is just using its abilities wisely. It isn't the case of the quasit fleeing, but making a tactical withdrawal. It hasn't ended its encounter with the PCs at that point; it has just fallen back. First, I love the sig! "B" Horror/Monster movies rock. Second, I agree with you completely. I had a recent encounter in my game where the monster the PCs faced did a similar thing (i.e. went invisible and fled) only to reappear in every combat in the remainder of the dungeon, not to mention pelt them with alchemist fire at random intervals and reset traps they had already disarmed. The point is, at no point did they actually "defeat" the monster in question, it was simply making full use of its abilities. Certainly, I gave them full XP reward for each of the other encounters, but I didn't award XP for the monster in question until it was well and truly defeated, which in this case meant dead. During the final battle with this dungeons BBEG, the monster in question appeared beside him cackling about how weak they were. The party took massive amounts of damage from the BBEG because they were spending all of their resources killing that little nuisance first. Good RP all around!
mvincent 09-21-07, 01:37 PM	In this case, the quasit is just using its abilities wisely. It isn't the case of the quasit fleeing, but making a tactical withdrawal. It hasn't ended its encounter with the PCs at that point; it has just fallen back.Agreed. Creatures that flee should be considered defeated, but creatures that merely continue to fight from a better location should not be considered defeated. Similarly, if the party stalked an opponent that fled in order to ambush it later, they would not get experience points a second time for defeating the poor, wounded creature.
Frugal 09-21-07, 02:17 PM	I'd go by the resources used by the creature and how much recovery time he's had. If the PCs fight the BBEG and he flees (to fight another day) then give them XP because they defeated him and when they face him again he'll be at full strength. Similarly, if the quasit fled and recovered (which sounds likely since it was several encounters later when they fought it) then yes, give XP. Consider it this way, they fight 1 quasit and defeat it, several encounters later on they find another one and defeat it, you'd give full XP for both encounters right? Well what's the difference between that and fighting the same quasit twice if it's at full strength both times? Maybe reduce the XP for the first encounter just because it wasn't truly defeated, but that's really a judgment call.
Downtym 09-21-07, 02:36 PM	In one of my recent sessions, I had a quasit attack the players while they were engaged with other mobs. Once the more durable foes were defeated (or when the quasit took substantial damage) it turned invis and fled to the next group. 4 encounters later, they finally kill it, and only then did I award them experience for it. One of my players claims they should have gotten xp every time it fled, since I've awarded xp even if PCs dont finish off dying monsters. His arguement is that the quasit made the other fights harder, and thus they deserve more xp. I ruled that they hadnt "overcome" the quasit the first few times, so no xp. Was I right? I would count the Quasit into the EL for the combats he participated and award XP appropriately for the EL difference. If the Quasit tactically retreats each time, he hasn't really been defeated, he's just been a smart little jerk. But I would count him into the EL of the encounter and that may give the encounter an XP boost. When the party finally defeats the Quasit, by driving it off or killing it, then I would reward full XP for the defeat. Example: 3 Chokers and a Quasit are in Room A. The party enters and beats the Chokers. The Quasit retreats to Room B. This is an EL 6 (4 CR 2's = Weak EL 6), so I would reward XP as if this was an EL 6. Award XP for 3 CR 2's, taking EL into account. Anyway, in Room B there's 1 Choker and the Quasit. This is an EL 4. The Quasit retreats again to Room C. Award XP for 1 CR 2, taking EL into account. In Room C, the Quasit is killed. this is an EL 2. Award XP for 1 CR 2, taking EL into account. So I would treat the Quasit as a rolling modifier to XP in this situation. But I could see the argument where you would just take a portion of the Quasit's award and hand it out in each encounter.
mvincent 09-21-07, 02:48 PM	One way to view it (which even coincides with the DMG) is "what constitutes defeated"? Example: sneaking past a guard counts as defeating him if your goal is to steal something. Similarly, the party's goal in regard to the quasit might be viewed as "prevent it from continuing to attack you". They did not do this until the final battle. However, if they left the dungeon after a few battles and went on a different adventure, the DM could probably then award XP for the quasit.
PenderGrass 09-21-07, 03:05 PM	A lesson to be learned here - never discuss specific xp awards with the players. As sure as anything, they will always have read the DMG and will want explanations. If they want to make sure that you remembered something that they feel deserved xp, that is one thing. But, if they want to argue how you awarded xp for something specific - that is totally something else. :dragon: ****
StevenO 09-21-07, 05:52 PM	Running creatures award full XP. That assumes the players don't encounter them again before they've recouperated because once they are back at full strength they are effectively a new encounter. With the quasit situation for the OP I agree with others who say the quasit made a tactical retreat. At most that should award partial XP each time with the total being the same as defeating the creature once.
Some_call_me_Tim 09-21-07, 06:17 PM	Well what's the difference between that and fighting the same quasit twice if it's at full strength both times? Would you give extra xp for a troll that regenerates? Because you might have to defeat it more than once. The problem is that a quasit, with fast healing, would be stupid if it continued to fight when severely wounded when by hiding it could quickly recover. The quasit was fighting very smart. In fact the monster entry includes: "[T]hey are cowards at heart. They typically attack from ambush, using their alternate form ability and invisibility to get within reach, then try to scuttle away." The only questions I have to ask is did it get outside help? Did the DM meta-game? Could the players have found it by looking or did it effectively teleport away to miraculously re-appear at just the right moment. If he was following the party while invisible and listen, spot, or see invisibility would have betrayed him, then the encounter was not truly over. The PC weren't being smart by not looking for him; I see no need to reward them. I would count the Quasit into the EL for the combats he participated and award XP appropriately for the EL difference. The problem is that xp is awarded for the various CRs defeated, not the EL of the encounter.
Lootus 09-22-07, 01:03 AM	In one of my recent sessions, I had a quasit attack the players while they were engaged with other mobs. Once the more durable foes were defeated (or when the quasit took substantial damage) it turned invis and fled to the next group. 4 encounters later, they finally kill it, and only then did I award them experience for it. One of my players claims they should have gotten xp every time it fled, since I've awarded xp even if PCs dont finish off dying monsters. His arguement is that the quasit made the other fights harder, and thus they deserve more xp. I ruled that they hadnt "overcome" the quasit the first few times, so no xp. Was I right? I think you're correct. I was looking at this same problem not too long ago. My final conclusion was that the DMG assumes that combat XP is awarded for completely killing monsters, with a few caveats. They try (poorly, IMO) to explain why killing the monster doesn't always mean it's the only way to get the XP, because there may be alternatives that fulfill the goal just as well. But the part they don't clarify is that if there's an XP award for a non-combat situation (such as an alternative to fighting), it should be noted as part of the encounter description as an ad hoc XP award. For example, if the PCs need to get an item to save the king that's kept in a treasure pile with a guardian bound to that location, it doesn't matter if they trick the guardian, sneak past it, kill it, banish it, or intimidate it, as long as they get the item. In this case, the encounter should list an ad hoc XP award for bypassing or otherwise avoiding combat with the guardian, which is different from giving out XP as if the monster was killed. If the PCs sneak past some goblins while dungeon delving or hide from a roaming monster that walks by, no standard XP applies. If you want to, you can note an ad hoc XP award for these tactics. In the case of enemies that flee, I decided that as a general rule no XP should be awarded for these guys. Monsters that are likely to consider running are usually going to hate the PCs even more after they regroup, in which case they're still a threat. The PCs may have killed some of them, but the rest are still there. Likewise, if some of the monsters were killed and the PCs ended up running away from the remaining enemies, they wouldn't get XP for the monsters that chased them away, even though in both cases the PCs might have "gotten past" the challenge. Of course each DM can do it a different way and each way is valid. But I get the strong impression that the assumption behind a monster's CR is that their XPs basically 'fly out with their soul' (or whatever) after being destroyed, and that all XPs gained in a way other than this are considered ad hoc awards and are handled as special situations*. All of this ties back to the adventure design concept of the PCs leveling up after 13.33 encounters of equal EL. If combat encounters in an adventure also have non-combat ad hoc XP awards of differing amounts, it adds that much more calculation into encounter and adventure design. * There are, of course, some common sense types of things that would almost always have an ad hoc XP award that is equal to the XP for killing the monster, such as delivering them to the authorities or winning them over to your side.
JulesCARV 09-22-07, 01:34 AM	What were the player's objectives? If the quasit has been in some town making mischief, and their objective is to to stop it, then they should only get XP if they kill, capture, or otherwise seriously incapacitate it. If they're just trying to go from Chirnaukov to Shinoko (two towns), and the quasit is trying to stop them, and they get the quasit to run off so that they can continue with their objective of going from Point A to Point B, then they should get XP regardless of whether they kill it or it escapes -- their objective is to continue on their route, and whether the quasit escapes or not isn't relevant (unless the party has paladins dedicated to destroying all evil or Baator loyalists dedicated to destroying all Tanar'ri or the like).
Crawdaddy75 09-22-07, 01:42 AM	Maybe you could give a percentage of XP equal to the percentage of the HP lost from the the creature. I avoid these kinds of arguements with my player by keeping a running total of the XP throughout the night. Not discloseing any XP awards to them Untill were are done. Unless one of the players does something extraordinary. then I'll say " blah blah got "X" ammount of XP for figureing out this or that. I do that to encourage my players to think more. Other that that they get Xp at the end of game with no explaination of how what monster/ encounter gave them what.
Andorxor 09-22-07, 02:00 AM	If they're just trying to go from Chirnaukov to Shinoko (two towns), and the quasit is trying to stop them, and they get the quasit to run off so that they can continue with their objective of going from Point A to Point B, then they should get XP regardless of whether they kill it or it escapes -- their objective is to continue on their route, and whether the quasit escapes or not isn't relevant It is not as easy.Player want s to go from a to d.They meet the monster in b and cause it to retreat to c.Should the get double xp for the monster?If yes.Should they get full amount of Monster XP for every step that the monster makes into the direction of d?
MrCustomer 09-22-07, 02:11 AM	The party should earn XP for every encounter that they beat, not for the corpses that pile up. Naturally the EL and XP earned should be adjusted according to circumstances, giving them less when they have an advantage or more when they have a disadvaantage. ie fighting an Ogre=normal XP, attacking a sleeping Ogre=less XP, Being attacked in your Sleep by an Ogre=more XP. An encounter where the enemy flees is easier then an encounter where it stands it's ground, it is also only a partial victory so should only earn a partial XP reward. Additionally the mobs that they did kill had an advantage by being assisted by the quasit during the combat. This increases the EL of the monsters that they faught. Full XP for each of these encounters would be silly, but an appropriate small XP reward would be in order.
Sildatorak 09-22-07, 03:25 AM	I avoid these kinds of arguements with my player by keeping a running total of the XP throughout the night. Not discloseing any XP awards to them Untill were are done. Unless one of the players does something extraordinary. then I'll say " blah blah got "X" ammount of XP for figureing out this or that. I do that to encourage my players to think more. Other that that they get Xp at the end of game with no explaination of how what monster/ encounter gave them what.I agree with this wholeheartedly. The xp shouldn't come until the end of the evening, and I'm of the opinion that the closest to an xp breakdown they should get is "you get N xp for overcoming monsters, Q xp for overcoming traps, Y xp for the clever tactics that let you bypass the troll, and Z xp for roleplaying."
Nom 09-22-07, 09:28 AM	... it turned invis and fled to the next group. 4 encounters later, they finally kill it, and only then did I award them experience for it.So we're not talking days, or rest periods, or anything like that. This thing is just flitting along harrassing them. They get the XP when they stop it harrassing them. Occasionally, you might award a partial award for a skirmisher that engages over multiple days, effectively resetting both the PCs and itself by resting each day. However, a skirmisher that, well, skirmishes over the course of a single rest period isn't defeated until you (a) stop it skirmishing or (b) win past it to whatever it was trying to distract you from. It's not retreating because the alternative is death; it's retreating because that was its plan from the outset. You defeat it when you either kill it or make it give up and go home. It defeats you when it kills you or makes you give up and go home. Until one of these occurs, the encounter is still going. If the PCs happen to intersperse other encounters with this extended encounter, that's life.
Lootus 09-22-07, 10:54 AM	The party should earn XP for every encounter that they beat, not for the corpses that pile up. Corpses that pile up from combat, yes. Corpses that pile up from non-combat, no (unless it's an ad hoc award, which is not necessarily the same as the XP from the creature's CR).
RendakorRahn 09-22-07, 11:20 AM	Thanks for all the replys guys. Let me elaborate a bit: The party enters a dungeon and attacks a pair of hobgoblins. They fail their spot checks, and the quasit uses its cause fear (causing the sorcerer to flee back outside and rendering the party shaken), then proceeds to engage the rogue in melee. The other characters focused on the hobgoblins, percieving them as the larger threat. The rogue inflicted maybe 1 dmg on the quasit while the party dropped the hobs. The quasit then turned invisible and fled deeper into the dungeon. Failed spot/listen checks all around. 2 encounters (same day, still in the dungeon) later, it ambushes them again, while they're fighting a couple dretches. The rogue goes after it this time, but lacking a cold iron or good weapon, can barely inflict damage. Dretches die, it invis's and flees again. It ambushes them again while they're fighting the 4th level warrior hobgoblin, and one last time while they're engaging the cleric at the end (at which point the fighter, sorcerer and druid's animal companion all attack it and kill it). I agree that if it had attacked them in transit and they caused it to flee they'd have earned XP. I figured since it was fighting as it tactically would have, they hadn't defeated it. None of the characters had see invis prepared, nor thought to leave the dungeon to rest and do so.
Suzu 09-22-07, 12:08 PM	I'd go by the resources used by the creature and how much recovery time he's had. If the PCs fight the BBEG and he flees (to fight another day) then give them XP because they defeated him and when they face him again he'll be at full strength. Similarly, if the quasit fled and recovered (which sounds likely since it was several encounters later when they fought it) then yes, give XP. Consider it this way, they fight 1 quasit and defeat it, several encounters later on they find another one and defeat it, you'd give full XP for both encounters right? Well what's the difference between that and fighting the same quasit twice if it's at full strength both times? Maybe reduce the XP for the first encounter just because it wasn't truly defeated, but that's really a judgment call. I think this is the best way of handling it. XP is calculated according to EL, and this recurring quasit would surely have put it up.
Some_call_me_Tim 09-22-07, 02:46 PM	I figured since it was fighting as it tactically would have, they hadn't defeated it. None of the characters had see invis prepared, nor thought to leave the dungeon to rest and do so.You did right. They never defeated it until the very end (when they did receive xp). They were poorly prepared for this little guy to fight intelligently. Why didn't the druid summon/wild shape a creature with the scent ability? As I said before don't reward bad tactics with extra xp; they should have defeated him before he escaped. XP is calculated according to ELNo its not, xp is awarded based on the CR of the challenge overcome (DMG 37).
StevenO 09-22-07, 03:07 PM	I think this is the best way of handling it. XP is calculated according to EL, and this recurring quasit would surely have put it up. As noted XP is based on CR not EL. EL may be related to CR but EL is for the entire encounter and is used as a tool to determine if it is appropriate. Individual parts of an encounter have CR which combine in various ways to get an overall EL. Now in situations where every contribution to an EL has the same CR and the party is the same level using EL for XP is often close to what using CR produces but when the EL is made up of differing CRs (the boss and his goons for example) then basing XP on EL starts getting off.
Serrin 09-24-07, 02:55 AM	If something comes back to fight you again, you haven't defeated it, you've postponed it. I would only award xp for each thing once per adventure. Until the adventure is over, you can't claim to have defeated it. Even if you kill it, it could still bother you again if it gets raised before you grab the Buttcheek of Vecna and teleport out.
Frugal 09-24-07, 08:10 AM	In this situation, it really sounds like the party was pretty ineffective against the quasit for most of those encounters so I'd be inclined to give a little XP for overcoming a more difficult encounter but not full XP for the quasit until he's defeated. I say extra XP for the encounter because you don't get XP for killing creatures, you get XP for overcoming encounters, they may not have defeated the quasit but they did overcome the encounter and the quasit was making that encounter more difficult.
Cifer 09-24-07, 10:11 AM	I concur with the posters saying that it depends on the objectives the PCs and their opponents had. If it was important for the monsters that they don't let the PCs breach even just their first line of defense, they obviously failed, meaning the PCs succeeded and overcame the quasit.
Marcus Majarra 09-24-07, 07:04 PM	I would award XP for every encounter in which the quasit participated, going on the following logic: You do not need to defeat all the opponents to overcome a challenge or encounter. For a combat encounter, it means you simply have to make it so that combat ends. Regardless of which opponents survived, they all contributed to the encounter's difficulty. Thus, the quasit, a recurring participant in multiple combats, is contributing its part of the challenge every time. Consider, if you will, the idea that instead of it always being the same quasit running and fighting again, you dealt with a separate quasit in each encounter and every one of them fled, except for the last one, which fell in combat. How would you award experience then? Would you award any experience for all the quasits that fled? The thing is: experience is earned in these instances. It doesn't matter if it's the same recurring quasit or different ones. The truth of the matter is: the PCs did defeat the quasit in each and every encounter on account of forcing the creature to flee. The creature surviving has no consequence on this all, although you might be inclined to consider its CR as less than usual if it appears in a later encounter weakened in a way significant enough for you to consider it less challenging than usual.
mvincent 09-24-07, 07:12 PM	the PCs did defeat the quasit in each and every encounter on account of forcing the creature to flee.As I read the original post, that did not seem to be the case. The quasit did not even apppear to be damaged in most cases. Something that is continually harassing you does not strike me as being defeated. The OP handled it entirely correctly... but it's possible that the players needed to have the quasit's motivations and tactics explained so that they didn't continue to think that they defeated it each time.
Marcus Majarra 09-24-07, 08:40 PM	Something that is continually harassing you does not strike me as being defeated. I believe you're misunderstanding: something that's continually harassing you is making things more challenging continually. It should be awarding you experience every time it's harassing you. This is what CR is about: making things more challenging. If the challenge is there and you either overcome it (as you would when you destroy a monster) or survive it (as you would a trap), you get experience.
Gryllmyre 09-24-07, 08:45 PM	My player turned a ghost, and it fled into the wall, then he killed the other creature in the room. At first he was convinced he deserved XP for the ghost, but he didn't realize I was still counting down the 10 rounds for the turn duration... If an NPC intends to flee in order to recuperate, I'll award XP for chasing it off. If the NPC runs to get help with the intent of coming at the PC's again in a short amount of time, I won't award it.
Sildatorak 09-24-07, 09:46 PM	I believe you're misunderstanding: something that's continually harassing you is making things more challenging continually. It should be awarding you experience every time it's harassing you. This is what CR is about: making things more challenging. If the challenge is there and you either overcome it (as you would when you destroy a monster) or survive it (as you would a trap), you get experience.In the case of the quasit, though, it is not challenging them as much as it fully could with each incident. I don't think it would be an awful idea to award the xp in chunks, but it should only total up to the value of the quasit in a single fight to the death, IMO.
Marcus Majarra 09-25-07, 03:40 AM	In the case of the quasit, though, it is not challenging them as much as it fully could with each incident. That's relative. Not every encounter's challenge should be established based on the assumption that all the monsters will remain to fight until they all fall. In fact, it's quite reasonable that some monsters will flee when weakened or reduced to numeric disadvantage. Reducing the number of opponents to such a small number as to cause the remainder to flee equates to fully overcoming the encounter. The OP himself stated that the quasit fled whenever the more durable opponents fell or when it was severely wounded, clearly indicating that the quasit was indeed overcome either way. Now, if the quasit were to reappear in later encounters in a significantly weakened state, its CR would be reduced for the later encounters. Personally, I don't consider that having used its cause fear spell-like ability warrants reducing its CR, and its fast healing is high enough for it to recover fully in 6 rounds, assuming it fled the battle with at least 1 hp. For practical purposes, they're practically fighting a brand new quasit every time. Full experience should be awarded every time.
Drag0nUL 09-25-07, 08:29 AM	I for one award experience for defeated enemies. By a defeated enemy I understand an enemy that has been rendered unable to hinder the party's plans to reach their goals. That might mean: -killing it -capturing it -driving it off for long enough to complete a certain task -avoiding encountering it altogether In the OP's situation I would have done the same (award no XP until the end). The PC's goal was to clear the dungeon or retrieve something from it, I assume. And the quasit had been a constant hinderance throughout all the adventure, so he was never truly defeated until the final battle.
mvincent 09-25-07, 12:13 PM	I believe you're misunderstanding: something that's continually harassing you is making things more challenging continually. It should be awarding you experience every time it's harassing you.While something that is conducting hit and run tactics can indeed making things more challenging continually, you don't get XP for defeating it continually (unless the party has an atypical goal). As mentioned, it might even increase the EL of another encounter, but that has no bearing on XP. This is what CR is about: making things more challenging.But that is not what XP is about. If the party runs from a challenging fight, they don't get XP (unless they have an atypical goal), even though they might have been challenged.
Frugal 09-25-07, 12:18 PM	In the case of the quasit, though, it is not challenging them as much as it fully could with each incident. I don't think it would be an awful idea to award the xp in chunks, but it should only total up to the value of the quasit in a single fight to the death, IMO. But it did make each encounter more difficult. Given they weren't very effective against it for some of the encounters I wouldn't give them much XP for it but it did add to the difficulty of the encounter. The party also expended resources by fighting it, and it also prevented them from bringing all of their resources to bear on the other opponents, which would make that combat take longer as well. All of this also points to warranting some XP. So I'd give some XP for each encounter, based on how you felt the Quasit affected the encounter, and then full XP for finally defeating it.
RendakorRahn 09-25-07, 12:49 PM	The quasit was not overcome until it died, as it was falling back. It continued to hamper the players' progress toward their goal (an item held by the cleric at the dungeon's end) to the best of its ability, while remaining true to its cowardly nature. They never substantially injured it, nor hit it with anything to overcome its DR, so it wasnt fleeing in mortal danger. So I didnt feel right awarding xp, until they finished it off. If they had completed their objective without ever dropping the quasit, I still would have awarded them xp for it, since they would have "defeated" it.
heffroncm 09-25-07, 12:59 PM	I think you went about it the right way RendakorRahn. The quasit was doing his part in the overall structure of the adventure. Did he use up more of the party resources than he would have if he had stood toe to toe until death? Sure, but so does a bunch of goblins who split the party up and ping them to death with ranged attacks compared to the group that stays bunched and stands in a line.
mvincent 09-25-07, 01:41 PM	The quasit was not overcome until it died, as it was falling back. It continued to hamper the players' progress toward their goal (an item held by the cleric at the dungeon's end) to the best of its ability, while remaining true to its cowardly nature. They never substantially injured it, nor hit it with anything to overcome its DR, so it wasnt fleeing in mortal danger. So I didnt feel right awarding xp, until they finished it off. If they had completed their objective without ever dropping the quasit, I still would have awarded them xp for it, since they would have "defeated" it.This all sounds entirely correct.
Marcus Majarra 09-25-07, 05:46 PM	The quasit was not overcome until it died, as it was falling back. It continued to hamper the players' progress toward their goal (an item held by the cleric at the dungeon's end) to the best of its ability, while remaining true to its cowardly nature. They never substantially injured it, nor hit it with anything to overcome its DR, so it wasnt fleeing in mortal danger. So I didnt feel right awarding xp, until they finished it off. If they had completed their objective without ever dropping the quasit, I still would have awarded them xp for it, since they would have "defeated" it. This makes little sense. If you're not awarding any experience for the encounters in which the party fought the quasit but didn't slay it, you're basically saying that there's no difference in difficulty between an encounter featuring the quasit and one that doesn't. As Frugal said, the party invested more resources in the fight than they normally would, had the quasit not been part of the encounter. Every hit a party member takes from the quasit justifies awarding experience for the quasit being part of the encounter. Now, if the quasit were merely a spectator in the earlier encounters (that is, if it didn't act for or against the party in any way), I would wholeheartedly agree that no experience should be awarded for it. After all, the quasit would not be posing a challenge. While something that is conducting hit and run tactics can indeed making things more challenging continually, you don't get XP for defeating it continually (unless the party has an atypical goal). As mentioned, it might even increase the EL of another encounter, but that has no bearing on XP. Actually, you do deserve experience for defeating it continually, assuming that you defeat it in multiple encounters. Hit and run tactics apply both within single encounters and through multiple encounters. If another encounter begins and the opponent is there, it doesn't matter whether it was present in an earlier encounter or not. It's present there and it's part of the challenge. If you overcome the challenge, you get experience. But that is not what XP is about. If the party runs from a challenging fight, they don't get XP (unless they have an atypical goal), even though they might have been challenged. Right. Experience is about overcoming a challenge. And in this scenario, the party didn't run from the fights. They won each and every one. They were challenged and they dealt with the challenge appropriately. Tell me, how would you have ruled it if the party focused on the quasit first, dealing enough damage to force it to flee, and then dealing with the other opponents? Would you award more experience because they actually took action against the quasit? Do you realize that, while dealing with the quasit, their other opponents still have free reign to attack the party? The simple truth is: the quasit was part of the challenge, and it was overcome adequately. This deserves experience.
heffroncm 09-25-07, 06:02 PM	The simple truth is: the quasit was part of the challenge, and it was overcome adequately. This deserves experience. The quasit was part of a challenge. The challenge was completing the mission. The problem lies in trying to assing experience on a "per encounter" basis, which the rules advise against. You should assign experience on "per adventure" basis, with xp given for any challenge that was overcome. XP is only handed out during downtime, you don't have to deal with people leveling halfway through a dungeon, and harrier such as the quasit suddenly fit right in. Plus, you'll actually be following the rules as they are, instead of houseruling your own experience system. For example, if done by adventure instead of by encounter, the quasit just becomes another part of the adventure. He acts the way he would act, has his own CR seperate from every other creature and trap in the adventure, and at the end of the adventure assuming the party overcame his challenge they would recieve XP for defeating him. This doesn't mean the party should get XP for monsters they never encounter just because they are guarding the same target as the monsters the party does encounter, but it does mean that they shouldn't get XP multiple times for the same monster in an adventure. There is a differance between fleeing combat and making a withdrawal to strike back later. You don't allow for this.
mvincent 09-25-07, 07:06 PM	This makes little sense.... to you. While I believe I understand your viewpoint, I do not perceive you understanding mine (which I believe to be how D&D actually works). Since I cannot convince you (even though I have cred here based on previous discussions), could you possibly ask the Sage, customer support or a fellow DM that you trust? you're basically saying that there's no difference in difficulty between an encounter featuring the quasit and one that doesn't.Since XP is based on CR (rather than EL), the difficulty of the encounter does not change the XP, and you do not necessarily get XP for every CR that participates in an encounter that you survive. From both the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060404a) and the 3.5 FAQ: "Encounter Level is strictly a tool for the DM to use when deciding if an encounter is too easy, about right, or too hard for a particular group of characters. It has no real effect on play. Some people think that Encounter Level determines how much experience character can gain from an encounter, but that's not so (see Challenge Rating)." Every hit a party member takes from the quasit justifies awarding experience for the quasit being part of the encounter.Again, that is not how XP works. how would you have ruled it if the party focused on the quasit first, dealing enough damage to force it to flee, and then dealing with the other opponents? The same: the party gets XP for the quasit just once for the session. Example: kobolds are notorious for hit and run tactics... however, this does not turn them into continual XP generating machines. Being ambushed by the same group of kobolds five times in a row should not net a party five times the XP.
Lootus 09-25-07, 08:32 PM	Ok, here's the thing. Experience from a CR is earned only when the PCs defeat the creature in combat - by either killing or immobilizing it after fighting with it. This is what the CR is based on after all - playtest skirmishes with the creature. Everything else is ad hoc territory. You can award XP in this way as much as you like - for fleeing creatures, for sneaking past a creature, for making friends with it, for stalling it, what have you. If you choose, you can make this ad hoc XP award the same amount as the creature's CR would have given, but it doesn't necessarily have to be equal to the CR, because it's an ad hoc award. So if you make it a habit of awarding XP to players for enemies that flee, that's perfectly fine, but the players should not feel entitled to an XP amount equal to the creature's CR every time (nor should you feel obligated to give this amount), because it is an ad hoc award, and the DM can make the size of this award whatever they feel is appropriate. Unfortunately the DMG doesn't even give a good guideline for these situations, so you can see the kind of confusion this has caused.
Mock26 09-25-07, 09:11 PM	I would give a slight increase to the amount of XP earned for each encounter, but as for defeating the monster, that would only be awarded once the creature was killed or defeated in such a manner so that it wouldn't or couldn't return. If the quasit had fled with the intention of never returning (or at least not returning any time soon) then I would award full XP for it. But, he was merely falling back to a different position. It was, in effect, a running battle with the quasit.
weasel0 09-25-07, 10:01 PM	or survive it (as you would a trap), you get experience. I actually have a DM who won't give xp for this. You triggered it. It got you. It did it's job and beat you. It wins, you lose, no xp for you. Yeah, it's assinine and I'm currently in debate with him about it. But, say instead of a per encounter basis(which isn't even assumed in the DMG, it suggests a lump at the end of the session or beginning of the next so you can determine how much it was all really worth-pg 37 under Experience Awards), it's per dungeon. You encounter and defeat each of these things in the dungeon and then at the end, you get exp. An imp who slinks off is not neccessarily defeated, only doing what it's supposed to be doing. Also yes. Never give a per monster report. It's always argued over unless it's the max amount for each and every little thing the players took note of.
heffroncm 09-26-07, 12:44 AM	I actually have a DM who won't give xp for this. You triggered it. It got you. It did it's job and beat you. It wins, you lose, no xp for you. Yeah, it's assinine and I'm currently in debate with him about it. I completely agree with the DM. Blundering into a trap isn't worth XP in my games. You need to beat the trap through Disable Device or some sort of ingenuity.
Mock26 09-26-07, 04:24 AM	I actually have a DM who won't give xp for this. You triggered it. It got you. It did it's job and beat you. It wins, you lose, no xp for you. Yeah, it's assinine and I'm currently in debate with him about it. I look at traps as having two purposes, and that is to not be found and to kill (or stop or whatever). If the trap succeeds on both counts, no XP is given (for example, a trap that actually traps the party alive in a cage did fully function as intended and the fact that the party survives has no bearing on this situation). If the trap succeeds on not being found but doesn't kill (or stop or whatever) as intended, only 1/2 XP is awarded. The same applies to a trap that was found but still went off but didn't kill (or stop or whatever). I have always found it a bit odd that the same amount of XP should be given for finding and disarming a trap as is given for blundering through and surviving one. Like I said, in one sense (of not being discovered), the trap did beat the group. Maybe you could try to meet your DM half-way and get him to see it that way. Meeting halfway might be better than no XP at all for traps.
Nom 09-26-07, 09:21 AM	I disagree, Mock. The trap's job is to stop you. If it fails to do this, you defeated it. Replace the trap with an ogre in hiding. Do you gain only 1/2 XP because the ogre successfully ambushed you?
eamon 09-26-07, 09:41 AM	I disagree, Mock. The trap's job is to stop you. If it fails to do this, you defeated it. Replace the trap with an ogre in hiding. Do you gain only 1/2 XP because the ogre successfully ambushed you? Exactly. If the players are simply triggering traps as a means of circumvention, well, that's probably being inefficient with their resources, and that they're problem. If it's not a problem at all, the challenge of the trap can't be that high and they can't be getting a lot of XP anyhow. And even healing spells are an expenditure; they force the cleric to choose which spell to convert now rather than later, which can become quite an issue. In any case, there are a bunch of nasty traps which do things other than plain hitpoint damage, which you can mix-in to make the costs to the characters a little more obvious. Even a minor amount of ability damage might reduce combat effectiveness. In any case, taking the easiest route for expedience because the threat isn't credible enough is something that happens all the time, and I don't deduct extra XP just for that (beyond the fact that the challenge won't have been to great in the first place)
Marcus Majarra 09-26-07, 09:53 AM	Since XP is based on CR (rather than EL), the difficulty of the encounter does not change the XP, and you do not necessarily get XP for every CR that participates in an encounter that you survive. Here's a quote from the DMG, for my rebuttal: As part of determining experience point awards, you need to break the game down into encounters and then break the encounters down into parts. Obviously, the encounter division is an important part of the experience award process. Basically, to determine experience, you break down into encounters first, and then divide the encounter into parts. These latter parts are CRs, as implied by the rest of the paragraph. As you said, you're awarded experience based on individual CRs, not encounter levels. You get no argument for me there. However, you need to account for all the CRs that are part of the encounter in order to award experience. Actual combat is not even necessary. At the start of DMG37, there's even an example in which the party should be awarded experience for sneaking past a minotaur into the vault it's guarding. The simple truth is that the monster's presence and ability to act against the party or otherwise inhibit the party is what justifies its CR and why experience should be awarded for bypassing the monster, one way or the other (assuming the monster is an obstacle to the party). The same: the party gets XP for the quasit just once for the session. Example: kobolds are notorious for hit and run tactics... however, this does not turn them into continual XP generating machines. Being ambushed by the same group of kobolds five times in a row should not net a party five times the XP. This makes no sense (to logic). Being ambushed five times by the same group of kobolds is identical to being ambushed by five different groups of kobolds, assuming the group retreats and fully recovers between each ambush. By your reasoning, you wouldn't award experience for any kobold group that wasn't fully disposed of simply because that group would be able to later return and fight. I believe the more important questions to ask are: why would anyone think the quasit in this scenario wasn't overcome in each encounter? Because it survived? Because it escaped prematurely? Because no action the party took had a significant effect against it? I see things from a simple point of view: the quasit was an obstacle to the party in every encounter. It was able to attack and weaken the party every time and this alone constitutes a challenge. Now, the quasit could have and probably did escape each encounter prematurely. Does this mean that its presence wasn't a challenge and that it wasn't overcome by sheer survivability? No, certainly not. The quasit's participation was part of the CRs that constituted the encounter level. A more likely possibility is that the quasit wasn't meant to be considered a CR2 opponent for that encounter since it was programmed to escape prematurely. Thus, it's far more appropriate to reduce the monster's CR than to disregard it completely, as disregarding it completely would mean the monster had no impact whatsoever on the encounter (which is not the case). Here would've been my ruling on the matter: Quasit (CR1): this quasit is less challenging than usual because it will escape whenever X hobgoblins have fallen, regardless of its condition. If the PCs manage to reduce the creature down to 3 hp or less before X hobgoblins have fallen, award experience as if the creature were worth a CR2 reward instead. If it survives when struck down to 3 hp or less, it will escape the encounter when its turn comes up.
Frugal 09-26-07, 11:05 AM	The thing with EL is that it can reflect a number of things. For instance, terrain conditions can affect the EL. I'd certainly award more XP to the party for overcoming an encounter that was tougher due to unfavourable conditions that they couldn't avoid. If you go strictly by CR though they get the shaft. The same is true of the Quasit, it made the encounter more difficult, it drained resources, it divided the party's attention, that all warrants some extra XP.
mvincent 09-26-07, 12:23 PM	I actually have a DM who won't give xp for this. You triggered it. It got you. It did it's job and beat you. It wins, you lose, no xp for you. From the 3.5 FAQ: "A trap is overcome either by disarming it—which gives XP to the whole group, not just the character responsible for disarming it—or simply for setting it off and suffering its effects, for which normal XP is awarded." From the DMG preview (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DMG_XPFinal.asp): "Overcoming the challenge of a trap involves encountering the trap, either by disarming it, avoiding it, or simply surviving the damage it deals. A trap never discovered or never bypassed was not encountered (and hence grants no XP award)." However, you would generally not get more XP if you continually got damaged from the same trap (by triggering it again, falling into the pit again, etc.)
Mock26 09-26-07, 04:43 PM	I still don't like the idea that a fighter just walking along and bumbling into a trap and surviving should get the same amount of experience points as would a trained rogue who takes the time to find the trap and then disarm it.
mvincent 09-26-07, 04:56 PM	I still don't like the idea that a fighter just walking along and bumbling into a trap and surviving should get the same amount of experience points as would a trained rogue who takes the time to find the trap and then disarm it.Yup, but them's the normal rules. Of course, a DM is free to change anything. It would probably be reasonable to at least give a bonus for disarming a trap.
Mock26 09-26-07, 05:02 PM	Yup, but them's the normal rules. Of course, a DM is free to change anything. It would probably be reasonable to at least give a bonus for disarming a trap. And I did change the rules in my campaign on traps. The only time someone gets full XP for a trap is if they disarm it or safely trigger it (so, a fighter tossing a dead orc onto a pit trap to set it off would get full XP, in part due to the creative thinking of the player). If you simply survive a trap, like I said up above, you get 1/2 XP for it. But, that is my house ruling on this issue.
mvincent 09-26-07, 05:26 PM	you need to account for all the CRs that are part of the encounter in order to award experience.That is not a truism. Example: the party slays hordes of mooks to reach the BBEG, who then dominates them and puts them in a prison cell. Wouldn't they still receive XP for all the monsters they slew (even though they didn't win the encounter)? This makes no sense (to logic). Being ambushed five times by the same group of kobolds is identical to being ambushed by five different groups of koboldsNot to me. Similarly, triggering the same trap 5 times is not the same as triggering 5 different traps one time each (else "pit diving" would become a popular sport for adventurers) By your reasoning, you wouldn't award experience for any kobold group that wasn't fully disposed of simply because that group would be able to later return and fight.That's actually not what has been said. The party would technically get experience for the first encounter (assuming the party didn't flee), but not for subsequent ones from the same group in the same session. why would anyone think the quasit in this scenario wasn't overcome in each encounter?Because it took almost no damage, and it continued to fight them. As a player; if something continues to fight me, I realize that I likely didn't defeat it yet (this has actually happened a lot) and I will not expect more XP. However, if I do not see the critter again during that session, I will still expect the DM to give me XP for it. That doesn't mean you have to kill everything. No harm in letting things flee that are unlikely to keep fighting you. Similarly, if you capture something and voluntarily let it go (maybe you are a kinder, gentler adventurer), the DM probably shouldn't use it again against you without being prepared to give you more XP. But I gather that the party here wouldn't have let the critter flee had they their druthers (for good reason) the quasit was an obstacle to the party in every encounter.A trap might also become an obstacle in a future encounter (even though it was overcome once), but the party wouldn't get more XP for it. Same with say, a cursed item, drained level, RP encounter, etc.
Nom 09-26-07, 07:01 PM	It would probably be reasonable to at least give a bonus for disarming a trap.You do get a bonus for disarming a trap - it doesn't cost you anything. This increases your ability to handle more encounters (and thus earn more XP). There's no need to double-reward. As for the quasit, its CR assumes that its an annoying pest that takes effort to eliminate. In a straigh-up fight, it's not worth much. A quasit that just turned up, casts cause fear, and runs away isn't of itself a CR 2 challenge. A quasit that keeps doing it at inconvenient times (such as when you've just started another encounter) is. Similar situation: if a monster flees from one encounter and joins a group of buddies for the next encounter, he doesn't count as two monsters, unless he somehow gets the effect of being fully healed and rested without any cost to the other group.
Voran 09-26-07, 07:04 PM	I would award xp at the end, when they finally got him, with a bonus adjustment due to increased challenge/headache. However, if I knew this was going to be a recurring thing, I'd give them xp each time they ran him off. The FF gets xp every time they run off Dr. Doom, not only when they FINALLY manage to temporarially kill him :P
mvincent 09-26-07, 08:03 PM	The FF gets xp every time they run off Dr. DoomYup, but in the same episode (or comic book edition).
weasel0 09-26-07, 08:29 PM	Well, I've got him thinking about this as a half-way point: Traps with no reset(auto) that a rogue misses and are sprung, no xp. Traps that reset(auto) are worth full xp because it is still(will be) a threat. Of course, any/all traps are only worth xp once(maybe subject to +/-xp free-form depending on DM judgement). But still. Like said earlier: An ogre steps out and bashes fighter on his head. Party deals with ogre. Party gains exp. A trap is released and bashes fighter on his head. Party deals with trap. Party gains jack squat. .... wait .. what?!? It's an encounter. Encounters yield exp. If it doesn't stop you from reaching your goal, it failed.
Mock26 09-26-07, 09:06 PM	Well, I've got him thinking about this as a half-way point: Traps with no reset(auto) that a rogue misses and are sprung, no xp. Traps that reset(auto) are worth full xp because it is still(will be) a threat. Of course, any/all traps are only worth xp once(maybe subject to +/-xp free-form depending on DM judgement). But still. Like said earlier: An ogre steps out and bashes fighter on his head. Party deals with ogre. Party gains exp. A trap is released and bashes fighter on his head. Party deals with trap. Party gains jack squat. .... wait .. what?!? It's an encounter. Encounters yield exp. If it doesn't stop you from reaching your goal, it failed. But, in a way, they didn't deal with the trap. They didn't use any special skills or their training to defeat the trap. They simply survived it. There is a big difference between a fighter using his weapon training to defeat said ogre than there is with his simply being tough enough to withstand the damage of the trap.
weasel0 09-26-07, 09:35 PM	I specifically said "deal" with not kill, just to avoid this point. And my case was as such: B)Door was trapped. Trigger turned on spouts that jetted flames from left and right across doorway to roast the opener. I failed my search. I took no damage cause I saved. I used a class ability to survive the encounter. A)A fighter uses his class abilities to deal with the traps the same way. Only the fighter has differnt abilities. Bigger HD and better AC. Also, I do see your point(same as my DM), which is why I'm arguing the middle ground I posted above. And yes, there is a big difference, however, that doesn't mean that the end result(my gaining exp) should be different. Situation #2: A)Party stubbles upon a den of ruffians. Encounter ensues. Party kills them and continues on. Exp gain. B)Party stumbles upon a den of ruffians. Encounter ensues. Party parleys and continues on. Exp gain-yes or no? Just because different parties or individuals in the party deal with the same threat in a different way, doesn't preclude the threat being dealt with. In the above, anything marked A) is fighter doing the thinking, B) is Rogue doing the thinking. Example only.
Marcus Majarra 09-27-07, 01:15 AM	That is not a truism. Example: the party slays hordes of mooks to reach the BBEG, who then dominates them and puts them in a prison cell. Wouldn't they still receive XP for all the monsters they slew (even though they didn't win the encounter)? According to the DMG, that depends on what the challenge to overcome was. If the encounter is setup so that the BBEG dominates the PCs in the end, then the challenge to overcome would be to go through all the mooks to reach him. In any case, you resolve experience for every encounter, using the CR components of the encounter to find the exact experience point figures to award. Not to me. Similarly, triggering the same trap 5 times is not the same as triggering 5 different traps one time each (else "pit diving" would become a popular sport for adventurers) Of course is not: the trap is a single encounter, no matter how many times the party navigates through the trap itself. When faced with groups of creatures at different times and different places, you're dealing with multiple encounters. That's actually not what has been said. The party would technically get experience for the first encounter (assuming the party didn't flee), but not for subsequent ones from the same group in the same session. This is nonsensical. A group is awarded experience based on the CR components of each encounter. That much is clear from DMG36. Whether an opponent appears in one encounter or multiple encounters has no relevance in the experience that should be awarded for thwarting that opponent in each encounter it participates in. DMG48 states that "each individual encounter is like its own game" and that is has "victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser." It's clear, from the OP's description, that the quasit was indeed part of every encounter and the OP even described under which conditions the quasit would escape the encounter, which obviously rules in favor of the PCs winning. And if the PCs win, they obviously overcame the challenges in the encounter, quasit included. Because it took almost no damage, and it continued to fight them. As a player; if something continues to fight me, I realize that I likely didn't defeat it yet (this has actually happened a lot) and I will not expect more XP. However, if I do not see the critter again during that session, I will still expect the DM to give me XP for it. That doesn't mean you have to kill everything. No harm in letting things flee that are unlikely to keep fighting you. Similarly, if you capture something and voluntarily let it go (maybe you are a kinder, gentler adventurer), the DM probably shouldn't use it again against you without being prepared to give you more XP. But I gather that the party here wouldn't have let the critter flee had they their druthers (for good reason) Whether the party manages to actually damage the quasit is not relevant. The OP said that the quasit would flee whenever it got seriously damaged or most of the other opponents were slain. This seems clear to me that these are additional conditions for defeating the quasit, as it would otherwise remain in battle to challenge the PCs. Here's an analogous example: a sphynx guards a magic item the party needs. In order to reach the item, the party needs to either slay the creature or answer its riddle. Thus, the encounter can be resolved in two ways and both ways award full experience. Answering the riddle doesn't even involve that the party damage the sphynx or even attempt to do so. As you can see, there is not only one way to overcome a challenge, in many cases. If the quasit was set to escape in additional conditions, then meeting these conditions is one way to overcome the quasit's challenge. In any case, I would avoid arguing actual effectiveness in dealing with a challenge through combat in order to justify experience. This leads to dangerous paths in which only characters who participated in combat to a notable effect should be awarded experience. The cleric shouldn't be the only one to get experience from an encounter against skeletons just because he beat everyone's initiative and managed to turn/destroy all the undead on his first turn. A trap might also become an obstacle in a future encounter (even though it was overcome once), but the party wouldn't get more XP for it. Same with say, a cursed item, drained level, RP encounter, etc. That would depend on the nature of the encounter. If a stationary trap is faced multiple times in the same conditions, this constitutes the same encounter. None of the parameters changed. However, if a trap, first encountered alone, later becomes the battlefield for another encounter, then experience will be awarded for encountering the trap in two different encounters.
eamon 09-27-07, 07:04 AM	Kind of as an aside, I think I'd give a bunch of XP for a fleeing party... Heck, that's got to be a new experience, right? My players really need huge hits gargantuan clue-sticks before they realize a battle might be a little too hard ;-). I mean, when faced with overwhelming odds, just surviving has got to be some kind of challenge ;-).
mvincent 09-27-07, 05:33 PM	According to the DMG, that depends on what the challenge to overcome was. If the encounter is setup so that the BBEG dominates the PCs in the end, then the challenge to overcome would be to go through all the mooks to reach him.I am referring to a standard encounter where the PC's are supposed to take down the BBEG and his mooks. If they enter an encounter with both BBEG and mooks, and slay the mooks (but are defeated by the BBEG), most DM's will still give XP for the mooks. Conversely, your method appeared to treat an EL as an all or nothing thing (i.e. if you survive the encounter, then you deserve XP for all opponents, even if the DM feels that some are not defeated and will continue to pester you). the trap is a single encounter, no matter how many times the party navigates through the trap itself. When faced with groups of creatures at different times and different places, you're dealing with multiple encounters.That is not a truism. Again: a running battle with a hit-and-run creature would be considered the same encounter in D&D. This is nonsensical.Again, I bid you to ask someone you trust. I believe you've reached the point of cognitive dissonance and nothing I explain will have an impact on you. The fact that this makes no sense to you (even though it makes perfect sense to at least half of the posters here) is a good indicator of this. Conversely, I understand your POV (and how it makes sense), I just don't agree that this is how the D&D XP system is designed (and I have more experience with the rules than you, and a greater history of being correct on this board). if a trap, first encountered alone, later becomes the battlefield for another encounter, then experience will be awarded for encountering the trap in two different encounters.Assuming that DM didn't plan it this way, does anyone here agree with this? Marcus, could you talk to someone that you know personally and see if they agree with you here? I know I'd certainly be tempted to lure monsters back to a trapped area if it meant more XP for me. Yet this is essentially similar to the OP's situation.
mvincent 09-27-07, 05:38 PM	Kind of as an aside, I think I'd give a bunch of XP for a fleeing party... Heck, that's got to be a new experience, right? My players really need huge hits gargantuan clue-sticks before they realize a battle might be a little too hard ;-). I mean, when faced with overwhelming odds, just surviving has got to be some kind of challenge ;-).Oh, it's an experience alright (as is dying for that matter), it's just that "experience points" are not neccesarily aptly name. They currently represent a reward for defeating (rather than just encountering) opponents.... so D&D technically is a game about winning ;) DM's often change this a bit though.
Frugal 09-27-07, 07:03 PM	I am referring to a standard encounter where the PC's are supposed to take down the BBEG and his mooks. If they enter an encounter with both BBEG and mooks, and slay the mooks (but are defeated by the BBEG), most DM's will still give XP for the mooks. Conversely, your method appeared to treat an EL as an all or nothing thing (i.e. if you survive the encounter, then you deserve XP for all opponents, even if the DM feels that some are not defeated and will continue to pester you). Actually, I thought he was saying that you do have to consider all participants in the combat and how that affects the EL, that's not saying that you don't get XP for the mooks. A better way to look at it would be, should the players get XP for the villain? They were defeated by him so obviously not full XP but they did face him, lived, and he did make the encounter more difficult, so I'd give some, modified for the capture most likely but he did make the encounter more challenging than if it were just the mooks.
mvincent 09-27-07, 07:46 PM	I thought he was saying that you do have to consider all participants in the combat and how that affects the ELI don't think so, since were talking only about XP (and we've established that EL does not affect XP). Marcus? should the players get XP for the villain? They were defeated by him so obviously not full XP but they did face him, lived, and he did make the encounter more difficult, so I'd give someThat would be an ad-hoc award though (i.e. it's outside of the standard XP rules). Regardless, I believe this is a non sequitur to my & Marcus' debate.
weasel0 09-28-07, 12:30 AM	What I see is Marcus is breaking down everything into little micro D&D instances. You change any of the points of the encounter, it's a different and completly new encounter subject to it's own little set amount of exp. MVincent(and myself here, I have to agree to his interpretation) is going with an over-all break of the encounter is not it's own little instance but is instead merely one section of the dungeon that you're focusing on now. So even if you change parts of the encounter, you're still dealing with the same dungeon and as such, will only get so much exp based on what the actual conditions of victory is(killing or sending the Quasit packing until say, the next day when both sides have healed). Now we all agree that if you change MAJOR sections of encounters, it's a new encounter(ie-it's a day later and at least one if not both sides have healed and go at it again). I think the big factor in the disagreement is where do we draw the line to indicate that enough change/circumstances altered that it constitutes a new encounter completely.
Frugal 09-28-07, 09:03 AM	I think it really breaks down to whether you're encounterist (EList?) or creatureist (CRist?). Neither is perfect if you ask me. The DMG says go by CR of each creature and award XP accordingly but then there are lots of situations where you're left wondering if XP should be awarded (such as the quasit situation, where clearly the creature made the encounter more difficult but doesn't get counted until it's defeated). Or, you go by the EL for determining XP, by calculating XP by the EL of the encounter (which I know some do), but then this creates issues if several creatures are defeated but the PCs "fail" the encounter in some way (such as the example of the mooks being defeated but the BBEG capturing them), what do they get for the encounter? Really, I think the solution is to go somewhere in the middle (which is what the DMG actually suggests), go by CR for creatures defeated and then assign ad-hoc rewards as necessary. For the quasit, I'd give an ad-hoc reward because it did make the encounters tougher, I'd likely adjust this depending on how long it stayed around and how much of a nuisance I felt it was. The same would be true for the BBEG, I'd give some XP for the mooks and some XP for the BBEG, likely adjusted for the capture situation.
Phrennzy 09-28-07, 12:11 PM	The quasit in this scenario is making each fight more difficult, so I would tack on extra XP. I would not reward the full value of the quasit for each fight, but maybe 1/4 or 1/2. Consider if each encounter had a different quasit that operated under the same circumstances. If it takes serious damage, or many of it's allies are killed, each quasit flees, never to be seen again. Would you award exp for driving the quasit away as the party gets nearer its goal? I've been DMing long enough to know that I don't need a book to tell me when I should or shouldn't award experience. For instance, I don't award it for traps that aren't found and then trigger. I do award experience for traps that are found and avoided, disarmed, or that trigger due to a failed disarming.
Yami 09-28-07, 12:55 PM	I still don't like the idea that a fighter just walking along and bumbling into a trap and surviving should get the same amount of experience points as would a trained rogue who takes the time to find the trap and then disarm it. I had an even better situation happen in game, once. We didn't have a trapfinder, but we were convinced a certain item hid a trap - so we avoided it. The one of the other characters went back alone and set it off on purpose... so he got full XP. Maybe it's within the rules, but if I were DMing,...no way.
mvincent 09-28-07, 01:33 PM	The quasit in this scenario is making each fight more difficult, so I would tack on extra XP. I would not reward the full value of the quasit for each fight, but maybe 1/4 or 1/2. Nothing wrong with that. Ad-hoc awards can be done any way the DM desires. Unfortunately, the rules don't cover it in detail. Consider if each encounter had a different quasit that operated under the same circumstances. If it takes serious damage, or many of it's allies are killed, each quasit flees, never to be seen again. Would you award exp for driving the quasit away as the party gets nearer its goal?Excellent counter-example. However, the DM in this case seems like a bit of a pushover. Quasits are designed to be sneaky, annoying bastards, and their CR is supposed to account for that. If each quasit flees (after not taking serious damage) and doesn't attempt to harass the party later in the same session (when it easily could), then it's probably not living up to it's CR. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#quasit): "they are cowards at heart. They typically attack from ambush, using their alternate form ability and invisibility to get within reach, then try to scuttle away. When retreating, they use their cause fear ability to deter pursuit." This is not an uncommon situation. This has come up before for me in a dungeon filled with teleporting demons. The demons would often teleport away if a battle was going bad, then teleport back in after regrouping. None of my players expected that this would give them x3 or x4 XP. They realized that this was simply an annoying tactic that they would have to somehow deal with. I don't award it for traps that aren't found and then trigger.I too was surprised when I first read the default D&D method for awarding XP for traps. I suppose their reasoning was that players don't enjoy being ambushed, then never having an opportunity to 'defeat' (i.e. get XP from) what ambushed them. we were convinced a certain item hid a trap - so we avoided itYa know... that kinda seems like the trap was overcome to me (as opposed to never seeing the item and never contemplating if it was a trap). You even gave up (potential) party resources (i.e. the item) to do so.
Phrennzy 09-28-07, 04:35 PM	Excellent counter-example. However, the DM in this case seems like a bit of a pushover. Quasits are designed to be sneaky, annoying bastards, and their CR is supposed to account for that. If each quasit flees (after not taking serious damage) and doesn't attempt to harass the party later in the same session (when it easily could), then it's probably not living up to it's CR. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#quasit): "they are cowards at heart. They typically attack from ambush, using their alternate form ability and invisibility to get within reach, then try to scuttle away. When retreating, they use their cause fear ability to deter pursuit." The key would seem to be 'cowards'. A coward would certainly strike from ambush and scuttle away to strike again. However, if the quasit in question was actually harmed in combat, he might very well think twice about returning to harm's way again. 13 hit points is not a whole heck of a lot - and the penalty for dying as a quasit might very well be starting over as a dretch or larva. I suppose their reasoning was that players don't enjoy being ambushed, then never having an opportunity to 'defeat' (i.e. get XP from) what ambushed them. I think a trap can be compared to a suicidal monster. That is, it attacks from surprise and knifes you during the surprise round. Then, it wins initiative on the next round and CdG's itself. Should the PC be awarded XP for that?
DMCuindless 09-28-07, 04:48 PM	The key would seem to be 'cowards'. A coward would certainly strike from ambush and scuttle away to strike again. However, if the quasit in question was actually harmed in combat, he might very well think twice about returning to harm's way again. 13 hit points is not a whole heck of a lot - and the penalty for dying as a quasit might very well be starting over as a dretch or larva. I think a trap can be compared to a suicidal monster. That is, it attacks from surprise and knifes you during the surprise round. Then, it wins initiative on the next round and CdG's itself. Should the PC be awarded XP for that? Absolutely! Experience is exactly that: Experience. In this case, a hilarious one! I'm going to have a kobold in a bag with 5 levels of rogue who hops out, dagger-in-the-guts whoever opened the bag, then with it's second attack slits it's own throat. Then, I'll award the PCs a CR 5 encounter! :D
mvincent 09-28-07, 04:59 PM	if the quasit in question was actually harmed in combat, he might very well think twice about returning to harm's way again. 13 hit points is not a whole heck of a lotSure, but the DM seemed to play it true based on his earlier description: "The rogue inflicted maybe 1 dmg on the quasit while the party dropped the hobs. The quasit then turned invisible and fled deeper into the dungeon. Failed spot/listen checks all around. 2 encounters (same day, still in the dungeon) later, it ambushes them again, while they're fighting a couple dretches. The rogue goes after it this time, but lacking a cold iron or good weapon, can barely inflict damage. Dretches die, it invis's and flees again. It ambushes them again while they're fighting the 4th level warrior hobgoblin, and one last time while they're engaging the cleric at the end (at which point the fighter, sorcerer and druid's animal companion all attack it and kill it). I agree that if it had attacked them in transit and they caused it to flee they'd have earned XP." I think a trap can be compared to a suicidal monster. That is, it attacks from surprise and knifes you during the surprise round. Then, it wins initiative on the next round and CdG's itself. Should the PC be awarded XP for that?By the rules: yes. By my opinion: yes A DM is always free to adjust the value if desired. If I saw this encounter in a published adventure (Dungeon magazine possibly) then I would certainly expect it to provide XP. The writer might say to reduce the value, but if he said to provide no XP if the creatures kills itself before the party does (and provided no plot goal why it would be so) then I would believe the author to be not very familiar with the D&D XP rules. Experience is exactly that: Experience.Not in RAW D&D... XP is more of a reward. Example: experiencing death at the hands (claws*) of a dragon is certainly an "experience", but it provides no XP. * also: teeth, wings, tail, breath, underbelly, spells, SLA's, horns, etc.
DMCuindless 09-28-07, 05:08 PM	Not in RAW D&D... XP is more of a reward. Example: experiencing death at the hands (claws*) of a dragon is certainly an "experience", but it provides no XP. * also: teeth, wings, tail, breath, underbelly, spells, SLA's, horns, etc. My post was meant to be more humorous, but regardless I stand corrected... why does it seem like I'm the only one who can say that?
mvincent 09-28-07, 05:39 PM	My post was meant to be more humorousIt was... I was just being pedantic for clarity. but regardless I stand corrected... why does it seem like I'm the only one who can say that?That is neither human nature (due to natural cognitive dissonance), nor the nature of the board (which is full of grognards). But I agree, and the boards would be clearer (if less active) if this were not so. I completely respect posters that admit this... it means they have credibility, and that they learn (i.e. their mind is not shut)... which means they might know the rules better than me at some point. Indeed, I myself love it when someone shows me something new (or catches me in a goof), and I do try to acknowledge it. I do this fairly often on the ENworld boards (where people like Hypersmurf and Infiniti2000 can be fairly meticulous). Unfortunately, these same people will also disregard any new material from the FAQ's, RotG articles, etc. which disagrees with their current view (which can somewhat limit one's rules-lawyering abilities). I could even provide links to a few threads here where I have been proven wrong (and so joyfully learned something new), however, it's more common for me to change my stance after reviewing more research material than was initially presented (and by then the initiating thread is long gone)... but I often mention such stance changes in future threads.
Marcus Majarra 09-28-07, 07:44 PM	I am referring to a standard encounter where the PC's are supposed to take down the BBEG and his mooks. If they enter an encounter with both BBEG and mooks, and slay the mooks (but are defeated by the BBEG), most DM's will still give XP for the mooks. Conversely, your method appeared to treat an EL as an all or nothing thing (i.e. if you survive the encounter, then you deserve XP for all opponents, even if the DM feels that some are not defeated and will continue to pester you). Except that you're taking defeat in the "slaying" sense instead of the "overcoming the challenge" sense. You don't necessarily defeat the quasit by slaying it; you defeat it by removing it as a variable from the encounter. Forcing an enemy to flee is defeating it, regardless of its later participation in any other encounters or adventures. That is not a truism. Again: a running battle with a hit-and-run creature would be considered the same encounter in D&D. On this I would agree. Except that we're not dealing with a running battle with a hit-and-run creature. We're dealing with multiple battle encounters with the same participant. You cannot deny that D&D considers all these battles separate encounters. Again, I bid you to ask someone you trust. I believe you've reached the point of cognitive dissonance and nothing I explain will have an impact on you. The fact that this makes no sense to you (even though it makes perfect sense to at least half of the posters here) is a good indicator of this. Conversely, I understand your POV (and how it makes sense), I just don't agree that this is how the D&D XP system is designed (and I have more experience with the rules than you, and a greater history of being correct on this board). Experience is no guarantee of effectiveness. You should avoid using these kinds of arguments when you fail to disprove a claim. I have yet to see you disprove the DMG stipulating that part of the experience point award system involves drawing the encounter line. This alone serves as evidence that you should consider all the participants in every encounter and determine the conditions for their defeat (which obviously include their escaping) as a way to determine which challenges are overcome. Assuming that DM didn't plan it this way, does anyone here agree with this? Marcus, could you talk to someone that you know personally and see if they agree with you here? I know I'd certainly be tempted to lure monsters back to a trapped area if it meant more XP for me. Yet this is essentially similar to the OP's situation. What purpose does it serve for me to have someone else agree with me? This discussion is meant to be objective. If we start delving into popular discourse, it's like saying the Church was justified in excommunicating Gallileo for his claims that the Earth isn't flat. And if you do manage to lure creatures into a trap, then by all means do award extra experience for it. They were defeated before and you can defeat them again in separate encounters. That's how D&D XP works: you get experience for overcoming a challenge. How a challenge is overcome is an aspect of the encounter in which the challenge presents itself. Of course, if the DM feels that an encounter no longer is challenging, he is encouraged to decrease the amount of experience awarded (see DMG39 under Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels). I don't think so, since were talking only about XP (and we've established that EL does not affect XP). Marcus? Actually, I was saying that you should consider all the participants in combat and how their challenge is overcome. Obviously, removing an opponent from combat constitutes overcoming a combat challenge. The fact that EL is changed by virtue of modifying the number of participants serves merely as an indicator that combat should actually be more challenging (as EL is a function of CR). What I see is Marcus is breaking down everything into little micro D&D instances. You change any of the points of the encounter, it's a different and completly new encounter subject to it's own little set amount of exp. MVincent(and myself here, I have to agree to his interpretation) is going with an over-all break of the encounter is not it's own little instance but is instead merely one section of the dungeon that you're focusing on now. So even if you change parts of the encounter, you're still dealing with the same dungeon and as such, will only get so much exp based on what the actual conditions of victory is(killing or sending the Quasit packing until say, the next day when both sides have healed). While you understood my stand well, the rules do not side with you. DMG48 states: "Each individual encounter is like its own game-with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser." Thus, encounters are treated like stand-alone instances. Excellent counter-example. However, the DM in this case seems like a bit of a pushover. Quasits are designed to be sneaky, annoying bastards, and their CR is supposed to account for that. If each quasit flees (after not taking serious damage) and doesn't attempt to harass the party later in the same session (when it easily could), then it's probably not living up to it's CR. That's relative. You're only looking at the quasit's CR as being a reflection of its pure mechanical strengths/weaknesses. CR doesn't limit itself to mechanical properties; the monster's general behavior plays a role in this too. Furthermore, you should read his example more carefully: he's stating that either the quasit is severely wounded or most of its allies are gone. These are reasonable escape conditions for any intelligent monster. Especially for cowards. This is not an uncommon situation. This has come up before for me in a dungeon filled with teleporting demons. The demons would often teleport away if a battle was going bad, then teleport back in after regrouping. None of my players expected that this would give them x3 or x4 XP. They realized that this was simply an annoying tactic that they would have to somehow deal with. The rules do not support you on this. They managed to drive back the demons at every encounter, which is overcoming the challenge they were presenting during that encounter. Whether they come back or not doesn't matter. They presented a challenge in each encounter and were met with defeat every time. Mechanically, the situation you're suggesting is no different than running multiple encounters with the same creature configurations, but not the same actual creatures. Can you see there's no difference here? Party forces Vrocks A and B to flee in combat one. Two hours later, party is met with Vrocks C and D, who are identical to Vrocks A and B and force these two to flee as well. For which do you award experience? This is where your entire argument fails. The only reasoning behind your claims is that you're dealing with the same individual creature. This has no relevance. As long as it's defeated, you overcome its challenge. I too was surprised when I first read the default D&D method for awarding XP for traps. I suppose their reasoning was that players don't enjoy being ambushed, then never having an opportunity to 'defeat' (i.e. get XP from) what ambushed them. While this claim is certainly fair, I prefer a more objective approach. The trap challenged the PCs and the PCs overcame its challenge by encountering and bypassing it (as stated in DMG39). Applied in a more broad perspective, experience is awarded by taking part in an encounter (DMG37) and overcoming its challenges. Not in RAW D&D... XP is more of a reward. Example: experiencing death at the hands (claws*) of a dragon is certainly an "experience", but it provides no XP. Very true. D&D awards experience for overcoming challenges. Falling to a dragon certainly isn't overcoming its challenge (it's the direct opposite).
Lootus 09-28-07, 10:23 PM	Very true. D&D awards experience for overcoming challenges. Falling to a dragon certainly isn't overcoming its challenge (it's the direct opposite). I would say the most accurate answer to the main question at hand is that the win conditions and XP awards for each encounter (skirmish) are listed by the DM when preparing the encounter. But... IMO the intended "default" win condition for a creature in D&D is to kill or immobilize it, and the "default" XP for that win condition is listed right there in its CR. Since the rules don't make this very clear, the DM could theoretically set whatever win condition they want for that CR, including forcing the creature to flee. Whatever the case, I believe that ad-hoc, alternate XP awards for alternate win/XP award conditions (those other than what I perceive as the "default") are more appropriate than always using a creature's CR as the basis for any XP award given out after an encounter with it. The DM can award XP for pretty much whatever they want (story goals, roleplaying, etc.), but the creature's CR was determined through playtesting it in combats with PCs, not for hiding from it or making it run away. Regarding repeating XP from re-encountering the same creature: Each encounter is a whole new combat scenario, and the XP should be tallied per-encounter, going by the DM's notes on what results deserve how much XP. If the DM awards XP=CR for fleeing monsters, then each time the PCs encounter the Quasit and force it to flee, then the DM awards XP=CR. If the DM awards 25 XP for fleeing monsters, then every time they encounter the Quasit and force it to flee, 25 XP. Normally the same creature won't keep coming back after it's been killed, but if it does, then it's a new fight and new XP. However, if you are awarding XP=CR for fleeing monsters, then you're setting a standard in your game where the PCs can get just as much XP for driving things off as for fighting them to the death, and possibly get full XP for the same creature over and over. Side note: In my view, a fleeing monster that won't ever bother the PCs again, or has no memory, is different from one that's going to remember who they are. Driving off a creature the PCs will never see again still wouldn't warrant XP=CR, but it would be worth more than would be awarded for driving off an intelligent creature, because the PCs may have made the rest of the dungeon/city/world even more dangerous for themselves by allowing their enemies to escape. In the OP example, the Quasit added to the encounter level of the encounter by making it significantly more difficult, so the DMG recommends awarding XP x 1-1/2. In this case the PCs get extra XP from the creatures they killed, because the Quasit made it harder for them. They still get no XP from defeating the Quasit, because it got away. Side note: Using a combination of the standard and ad-hoc XP award methods, you could award XP for chasing off the Quasit as if it was less difficult, giving an XP award equal to 1/2 or 2/3 of its CR, but I don't recommend doing this because now you're mixing up encounter criteria with XP awards for individual monsters. Best to leave these two things separate, I say, and determine if and how you want to award XP for fleeing monsters ahead of time (and for what kinds of monsters), either as general guidelines or for each combat encounter. The entire "Fleeing Monsters" situation is one where it would have been nice to have clarification in the rules, because it happens all the time. In my current game, the PCs have forced goblins to flee multiple times, but I don't award XP for those goblins that ran away. They know who the PCs are now, and they live where the PCs have to go back into. Why would I give the players XP for driving off an enemy that wants to stab them in their sleep or gather more forces in order to ambush them in an even deadlier fight?
Marcus Majarra 09-28-07, 11:32 PM	IMO the intended "default" win condition for a creature in D&D is to kill or immobilize it, and the "default" XP for that win condition is listed right there in its CR. Since the rules don't make this very clear, the DM could theoretically set whatever win condition they want for that CR, including forcing the creature to flee. I'm inclined to believe they left the issue of the default win condition against a monster ambiguous on purpose. DMG36 uses the term "defeating it in combat," which can be interpreted in many ways. It makes sense to me that a creature is defeated when it's forced to flee (as PCs would be defeated if the tables were turned). Similarly, it seems coherent to me that intelligent monsters fear death or destruction to a point where unnecessary risks will not be taken. Whatever the case, I believe that ad-hoc, alternate XP awards for alternate win/XP award conditions (those other than what I perceive as the "default") are more appropriate than always using a creature's CR as the basis for any XP award given out after an encounter with it. The DM can award XP for pretty much whatever they want (story goals, roleplaying, etc.), but the creature's CR was determined through playtesting it in combats with PCs, not for hiding from it or making it run away. I agree with you here. The easiest course of action is to reduce the creature's actual CR in proportion to the challenge it's actually posing. This assumes, of course, that the creature is unusually easy to defeat when compared to normal members of its entry. Why would I give the players XP for driving off an enemy that wants to stab them in their sleep or gather more forces in order to ambush them in an even deadlier fight? Simply put: because they faced these enemies in an encounter and overcame their challenge.
Lootus 09-28-07, 11:42 PM	Simply put: because they faced these enemies in an encounter and overcame their challenge. If I chose to define overcoming that challenge as driving them off, then yes. But as you said, that part is left ambiguous on purpose, so that each DM can define what results are considered overcoming a challenge in each encounter. :)
weasel0 09-28-07, 11:59 PM	Here we have the line. We disagree on what entails an "encounter." When one ends and a new one begins. Just because the players think they've finished an encounter doesn't mean it really is over. It's up to the individual DM to determine that. A rogue who's been hit and most all comrades are dead slinks around a corner, pulls a silent alarm and downs some potions. Reinforcements arive 3-5 rounds after the party thinks it's all done. Now, is this a new encounter? Is this the same one with actual reinforcments becuase the rogue has never left battle? If it is a new encounter, does this rogue(who leaps back into the action with reinforcements) now count as double exp? I would never give the party exp for this rogue twice. I feel he's only being encountered once. Just becuase the party failed to keep track of him doesn't mean he's being encountered again.
Marcus Majarra 09-29-07, 12:50 AM	If I chose to define overcoming that challenge as driving them off, then yes. But as you said, that part is left ambiguous on purpose, so that each DM can define what results are considered overcoming a challenge in each encounter. True. Keep in mind, however, that in basic combat, forcing an opponent to withdraw from combat is essentially removing any challenge that opponent might pose in the combat in question. This all depends on the nature of the challenge. Combat encounters generally involve creatures trying to destroy or capture the PCs (this is the challenge here), so it's only natural that driving them off overcomes the challenge. It's more interesting to note of alternative ways to overcome an encounter when it's important to do so. The DMG provides a good example of a minotaur guarding a vault the party wants access to. The party receives just as much experience from defeating the creature in combat as they do for sneaking pas it, since both result in overcoming the challenge of bypassing the minotaur to reach the vault. If the party is attacked by a monster group, it seems logical that the challenge be overcome when the monsters are no longer in a position to attack the party, whether they've been destroyed or left the encounter in any way.
Lootus 09-29-07, 11:56 AM	True. Keep in mind, however, that in basic combat, forcing an opponent to withdraw from combat is essentially removing any challenge that opponent might pose in the combat in question. This all depends on the nature of the challenge. Combat encounters generally involve creatures trying to destroy or capture the PCs (this is the challenge here), so it's only natural that driving them off overcomes the challenge. I agree with you there, there's no question that if something is attacking you, it's a victory when you make it stop doing that. But my aforementioned concerns about different situations have led me to use a more detailed approach. In most cases, some amount of ad-hoc XP award is justified for driving off a monster, but in cases where a primary challenge of the encounter involves not allowing the enemy to get away, this ad-hoc XP for a fleeing monster may be either greatly reduced or not awarded at all. Examples would be an encounter where the enemy escapes and sets off an alarm, or a creature that is going to run away as part of its battle plan (perhaps to lead the PCs into a trap), or an encounter that is supposed to stall or distract the PCs from the real goal, or an evil mastermind who the PCs chase away in an encounter, (but it wasn't the "big fight" yet - he was more interested in escaping). The ad-hoc XP for the mastermind fleeing may be greatly reduced when compared to his real CR, but is appropriate for the fight he gave the PCs. In my example with the goblins, part of the challenge to fighting them in this location is that the ones who run away and survive are going to come back with reinforcements and make the PCs job much more difficult later on, so the ad-hoc award for fleeing goblins is very minimal, if anything. I suppose ideally every encounter a DM creatues should have a list of ad-hoc XP awards or penalties for various outcomes of the battle, or at the very least a list of ad-hoc XP awards to cover fleeing monsters. I never realized before how unclear and confusing this part of the DMG could be. There really should have been some examples put in there to cover fleeing monsters, since it happens all the time. Has anyone seen it covered in another book or article anywhere?
Marcus Majarra 09-29-07, 12:58 PM	In my example with the goblins, part of the challenge to fighting them in this location is that the ones who run away and survive are going to come back with reinforcements and make the PCs job much more difficult later on, so the ad-hoc award for fleeing goblins is very minimal, if anything. I would agree with you here, if the surviving goblins escaped under unusually easy conditions and returned in a later encounter. If the PCs fought them fair and square and forced them to flee under reasonable conditions, then they overcame the challenge, regardless of the goblins' later participation in other events. I never realized before how unclear and confusing this part of the DMG could be. There really should have been some examples put in there to cover fleeing monsters, since it happens all the time. Has anyone seen it covered in another book or article anywhere? I very much doubt you'll see any reference for this. All the DMG says is that the typical way to overcome a monster's challenge is by defeating it in combat. If you don't consider reasonable escape as defeat, it's your thing. I find it to be legitimate in typical combat encounters.
Lootus 09-29-07, 09:03 PM	Part of my reasoning is that my understanding is that CR is based upon the creature depleting a certain amount of PC resources, so therefore the listed CR must assume a fight to the death with that creature. A creature that flees would deplete less resources, meaning the listed CR is now conditional upon whether that creature always flees or fights to the death, which is sometimes made clear somewhere in the creature's text, but not always. So it's not so much the part about overcoming the challenge that I'm questioning, just which scenario determines how the CR is listed.
Marcus Majarra 09-29-07, 11:35 PM	Part of my reasoning is that my understanding is that CR is based upon the creature depleting a certain amount of PC resources, so therefore the listed CR must assume a fight to the death with that creature. A creature that flees would deplete less resources, meaning the listed CR is now conditional upon whether that creature always flees or fights to the death, which is sometimes made clear somewhere in the creature's text, but not always. So it's not so much the part about overcoming the challenge that I'm questioning, just which scenario determines how the CR is listed. I believe you're assuming the same idea I think mvincent is: CR only reflects mechanical effectiveness. I prefer to see things differently: CR is a reflection of the intended challenge of the creature, taking into account both mechanics and mindset. I expect intelligent creatures to flee when faced with a serious threat, especially ones listed as cowardly (as stated in the quasit's entry). I see no reason to assume a fight to the death to correctly represent a CR because reasonable escape conditions are those in which death seems like a certainty for the creature if it remains to fight. Common fear is a valid way to force a creature to flee. Subjecting the quasit to a fear spell is no different from taking out all its allies in that it will fear for its life and attempt to escape. Of course, this is not the case for all creatures. Indeed, mindless creatures do not know fear and will indeed stay to fight until destroyed, and I believe this to be factored into their CR. Of course, this is all theory, at this point. If we want to crunch some numbers, a comparison is more appropriate. A typical ogre is CR3, which is one point above the typical quasit. Yet, the quasit is both more durable and attacks in ways more difficult to counteract at low levels than an ogre does. And yet, the ogre is more challenging. It doesn't matter that the quasit can fly perfectly, turn invisible at will, reduce the damage it takes, recover the damage it actually takes, and attack twice as often and as accurately (dealing poison damage instead of hp damage) as the ogre. Now, someone might be inclined to think the quasit's CR is underrated (or that the ogre's is overrated). I'd have to playtest combat scenarios myself in order to ascertain this idea with some level of certainty. If I assume the designers did this right (I shudder to think they didn't, as this would throw the entire CR ratings out the window), so I have to think that there's something that mitigates the quasit's obvious advantages over the more statistically challenging ogre. Preferred tactics is where this is at. By being a coward at heart, the quasit is more likely to escape when danger rears its ugly head, whereas the dumb ogre will smash first and flee later.
Toki_Wartooth 09-30-07, 10:00 PM	Awarding XP multiple times for a creature that tactically retreats to attack later is effectively awarding PC's for not completely dealing with problematic encounters. It seems like more players than DM's would be to type to think it should be done this way. Seriously: playing the opposition smartly should not be a benefit for PC's.
Marcus Majarra 09-30-07, 10:06 PM	Awarding XP multiple times for a creature that tactically retreats to attack later is effectively awarding PC's for not completely dealing with problematic encounters. This assumes the creature is retreating without the need to do so. Forcing a creature to flee is completely dealing with a problematic encounter, regardless of the creature's participation in later events.
Frugal 09-30-07, 10:16 PM	Awarding XP multiple times for a creature that tactically retreats to attack later is effectively awarding PC's for not completely dealing with problematic encounters. It seems like more players than DM's would be to type to think it should be done this way. Seriously: playing the opposition smartly should not be a benefit for PC's. But if you do that then consider the recurring villain who always makes a getaway, no XP. Consider that driving off an opponent might be the best solution to a problem, no XP. Consider that if the creature has time to fully recover then there's no difference between it and an entirely new creature of the same type, so why should they get double XP for fighting 2 of the same creature but not for fighting the same creature under the same circumstances? Now yes, I don't think anyone has been arguing for full XP for just damaging it a bit, or not at all but killing its allies, before it fled and then facing it again on the same day (where it might have healed up but any per day abilities would be depleted). I think everyone has been saying award some XP as a reflection of the extra difficulty it added to the encounters. Now yes, if a creature just happened to withdraw for a short period of time, had no increased healing abilities and just struck up a better tactical position I likely wouldn't award more XP since other than the tactical position the creature didn't gain anything from retreating and in this case there is a difference between facing 2 of the same creatures, it's a weaker version the 2nd time, so I'd probably just award the XP once, or maybe a slight ad-hoc adjustment if I felt that the tactical change really changed the difficulty of the encounter.
Jhulae 10-01-07, 12:02 AM	And I did change the rules in my campaign on traps. The only time someone gets full XP for a trap is if they disarm it or safely trigger it (so, a fighter tossing a dead orc onto a pit trap to set it off would get full XP, in part due to the creative thinking of the player). If you simply survive a trap, like I said up above, you get 1/2 XP for it. But, that is my house ruling on this issue. So, using this logic: You give full XP to the party when they kill the enemy but take no damage, but only give half XP when the party does take damage (perhaps even significant damage)?
Serrin 10-01-07, 07:13 AM	Jhulae: Though I'm not Mock26, perhaps this is explanation enough. I don't think that the logic can be carried over unchanged, if a few assumptions are made. These assumptions are something like as follows: 1) Traps exist to be disarmed or cleverly worked around. Surviving them means you've failed, but aren't dead. 2) Monsters exist to be fought and killed. Surviving the fight means success. So surviving a trap is an acceptable, but clearly suboptimal solution. In a fight, there are no real mixed outcomes; you either win or lose. Alternative justification may exist in the fact that circumventing a trap requires a lot more effort and player thought than simply taking damage and expending healing. It's an interesting question, but ultimately there are more important factors that count when determining what xp to award than if/how much damage the party takes. Traps have three outcomes, while fights have only two, and of traps' three outcomes, there is a clear hierarchy, and it's not unreasonable to think that "solving" a trap deserves more of a reward, or gives a character more knowledge than merely "surviving" the trap.
Magrus 10-01-07, 07:25 AM	The DM is always right. That said, I would have given maybe 1/2 XP for Quasit at each "flee" encounter even though I knew it would be a recurring obstacle. Why? They "over came" it each time or they'd still be fighting it now, or dead. It's invisible poison tail made each encounter tougher because casters had to watch out for sneak attacks, fighters were poisoned so tanking was harder, etc. You are setting up the "must die for xp" scenario that will lead them to knifing every unconscious goon and thug, fireballing whole goblin villages to get the last gobbo warrior that attacked the caravan on the road, etc. If it must die to be "over come", everything must die. Large scale Belkar-like activities abound. Which is something a number of DM's haven't grasped in a number of games with me. The connection between when I ask "Do I get XP for things if I don't kill something" and they say "Well, sometimes I give roleplaying experience, if you are really good at it." and then my noticing that I don't get anything besides when I kill things leading to my shrugging and going postal. It isn't some fascination with video game play, it is the fact that the realization I won't get anything unless I bend over backwards AND crawl for a DM outside of killing that ruins the game. I run games, something that tickles me will get a slight reward, but it isn't the only way to get a reward. Things like a clever tactic or roleplaying just, say, your characters attributes should be things factored into the game, IMO. It's just my opinion, but when a player gets the DM chiming in to say "Hey, and you get an extra 100 XP because you thought up that clever way to trick the goblins out of their money without having to waste the energy to get your weapons dirty." makes the other players stare and think "Hey, I can do that!" It leads to a jump start of creativity and imagination in the game. @ the OP, If you are having the creature attack or threaten the Characters, or make the players think in order to avoid a dangerous scenario, that is worth XP. Either the character, or the player is learning, and learning is what the XP represents. Its the direct correlation between this game and XP as is schooling and the report card that gets sent home. If a student succeeds, and gets nothing on his report card for it, he says "Screw this, I got jipped. I'll have fun instead". If he succeeds and gets an A, he keeps doing that. This assumes the creature is retreating without the need to do so. Forcing a creature to flee is completely dealing with a problematic encounter, regardless of the creature's participation in later events. Exactly. It's an encounter, it isn't always a "My most hated foe must be DESTROYED!" combat scenario. I encounter people in every day life, and you know what? A lot of those people I encounter on a regular basis. I don't see all of my co-workers every day at work, but I know I see X employee on Mondays and Thursdays, while Y employee is on Fridays. The random girl that drove through the intersection is probably someone I will never see again however, as thats a 1 time encounter. One of the most fun things for a player, for me, is knowing that what I did previously affects the later events coming up. Knowing that I defeated someone in the world, but he got away and realizing the figure coming towards me is none other than the guy we let go a few weeks later. It isn't that it's just a new challenge for my character, it is realizing the DM wove that into the game for us. As a DM, realizing that my work in providing meaningful encounters which provoke fun outside of combat as well as combat is rewarding as well. I think of it more as everything is a possible learning experience. I go through a little, situational checklist in my head after a party bumps into one of my learning experiences. Did they alter, at all their thinking process before they ran into this experience? Learn anything? This becomes a problem when your party has been playing for a while, or with long time players. Which is why, I think, a lot of long time players have trouble with newer players. Inexperience leads to looking stupid to a lot of experienced players. The new ones don't grasp all of the rules, and haven't learned which tactics don't work in which situations. If the player isn't learning, his character isn't. If the player can't keep a difference between what he knows, and what the character knows, role playing failed. A lot of groups fail this most especially. Just because it is tactically sound to take an action, doesn't mean your character knows this. A player should be rewarded for not taking that tactically sound action, when taking it will help his character overcome the obstacle easier, because it's in character. Otherwise, the player will think "Oh well I don't get anything for role playing properly, but my character gets shiny stuff to kill that thing in the best way I can think of."
Lootus 10-01-07, 07:43 PM	I believe you're assuming the same idea I think mvincent is: CR only reflects mechanical effectiveness. I prefer to see things differently: CR is a reflection of the intended challenge of the creature, taking into account both mechanics and mindset. I expect intelligent creatures to flee when faced with a serious threat, especially ones listed as cowardly (as stated in the quasit's entry). I see no reason to assume a fight to the death to correctly represent a CR because reasonable escape conditions are those in which death seems like a certainty for the creature if it remains to fight. Common fear is a valid way to force a creature to flee. Subjecting the quasit to a fear spell is no different from taking out all its allies in that it will fear for its life and attempt to escape. Of course, this is not the case for all creatures. Indeed, mindless creatures do not know fear and will indeed stay to fight until destroyed, and I believe this to be factored into their CR. Of course, this is all theory, at this point. If we want to crunch some numbers, a comparison is more appropriate. A typical ogre is CR3, which is one point above the typical quasit. Yet, the quasit is both more durable and attacks in ways more difficult to counteract at low levels than an ogre does. And yet, the ogre is more challenging. It doesn't matter that the quasit can fly perfectly, turn invisible at will, reduce the damage it takes, recover the damage it actually takes, and attack twice as often and as accurately (dealing poison damage instead of hp damage) as the ogre. Now, someone might be inclined to think the quasit's CR is underrated (or that the ogre's is overrated). I'd have to playtest combat scenarios myself in order to ascertain this idea with some level of certainty. If I assume the designers did this right (I shudder to think they didn't, as this would throw the entire CR ratings out the window), so I have to think that there's something that mitigates the quasit's obvious advantages over the more statistically challenging ogre. Preferred tactics is where this is at. By being a coward at heart, the quasit is more likely to escape when danger rears its ugly head, whereas the dumb ogre will smash first and flee later. This explanation actually illustrates my problems with the “CR includes fleeing” method pretty clearly. There is no reason not to go with the assumption that a fight to the death is the baseline for every creature’s CR. Firstly, from a purely practical, usability standpoint, this eliminates the need for the DM do guesswork on every intelligent creature in the MM to determine whether or not its CR reflects it running off the map in every playtest encounter. It’s more logical to assume that the listed CR reflects the best fight the creature could give the PCs, and thereby allow the DM to adjust XP for other circumstances (including fleeing) downward as they see fit. Otherwise, the DM must guess as to whether a creature’s listed CR is based on it A) always, B) sometimes, or C) never running away from a fight with PCs. If the DM determines the answer is B (which most intelligent creatures fall under), then the DM would be obliged to increase the CR/XP earned for such a creature if it fights the PCs to the death. If the DM’s guess is faulty, they may be giving the players too much or too little XP. By this model, the rules (listed CRs) will often by default have the DM awarding the players less XP than they are rightfully entitled to. Thus by simply going by the listed CR, the DM may be unintentionally undercutting the players' XP. I strongly feel that the core rules would not have the DM unwittingly doing this without at least a mention of it somewhere in the DMG, if not listed directly in the CR entry for such creatures. Instead, I choose to believe the rules err on the side of the players, so that nobody feels as if the CR in the MM is by default giving the players a raw deal for enemies that don’t retreat. “Doesn't flee, full XP” is a much more practical and useful guideline for the DM. You are setting up the "must die for xp" scenario that will lead them to knifing every unconscious goon and thug, fireballing whole goblin villages to get the last gobbo warrior that attacked the caravan on the road, etc. If it must die to be "over come", everything must die. Large scale Belkar-like activities abound. As to Belkar-esque episodes of mass slaughter, “Doesn't flee” simply means the creature fights as long as it can hold out. If the PCs subdue, immobilize, capture, or otherwise completely incapacitate the enemy, it’s effectively the same as if they had killed it for purposes of XP. Both of the above methods have the same possibility of Belkarism, it’s just a question of whether the PCs are Belkaring for “normal” or “bonus” XPs. However, my way actually makes Belkaring much easier for a DM to manage, because the DM is free to give full or partial XP for fleeing enemies as the situation warrants (since chasing down enemies can help or hinder adventure goals), instead of the DM being obliged to award extra XP every time the PCs kill an enemy that might have chosen to retreat (and make a guess as to whether or not fleeing was the intended outcome behind the listed CR). So if you agree with the above reasoning, then a creature’s CR is based upon it giving the PCs the best fight it could, which includes not fleeing from them. Anything less may reduce the XP awarded, up to and including no XP (for giving the PCs no challenge at all). As to what types of scenarios each DM uses to justify reduced amounts or no XP in such encounters, that is entirely subjective and cannot be argued except perhaps anectdotally, to give examples of how a DM and players decided was a good way to handle it in a specific game or instance of play.
Lootus 10-01-07, 08:06 PM	Regarding Traps and Hazards: Unintentionally spring trap and take no damage – XP Unintentionally spring trap and take damage from it – XP As #1 or #2, and trap resets – XP (one time only) Why XP for #s 1-3? The trap was encountered (akin to being engaged in combat with it when it goes off). Since traps and hazards represent all sorts of damage coming the way of the PCs, the designers wanted to incorporate the idea that players should earn XP from traps and hazards that damage them and reduce their resources. Find trap and disable/spring – XP Find trap and avoid completely – no XP Do not find trap and avoid completely – no XP Why XP for A? If there was no alternate way to gain XP from a trap, the PCs would feel they had to throw themselves into a trap in order to have a chance at getting XP for it. In other words, the rules would reward players who get hit by traps more than players who find and skillfully disable them, which is silly. Why no XP for B-C? In B, there was no encounter because the PCs avoided it. Because the basis for this XP award is the damage taken by the PCs, no award is given if there was no damage taken when the PCs uncover a trap, but don’t set it off. In C, there was no encounter choice at all.
Marcus Majarra 10-02-07, 12:58 AM	I'll have to disagree with you Lootus. At the point where a creature is reasonably forced to flee, there'll be little difference between staying to fight and fleeing, in terms of expended party resources. Standing to reason, a creature will flee when it can no longer remain in combat, which usually equates to one round's worth of actions. This will rarely result in a disbalance of expended party resources (it'll average out in the long term). As such, no experience is undercut as the monster did present the expected challenge. Nonetheless, this part of the discussion is somewhat pointless. The DMG defers to "overcoming challenges" and this all comes down to the nature of the challenge. When a party is attacked by monsters, the challenge is naturally overcome when the monsters can't attack the party, for the purpose of the encounter. If the roles are reversed, then the challenge is overcome when the monsters are incapacitated. If the monsters instead block the party's route, the challenge is overcome when the monsters are bypassed. As such, slaying or incapacitating a monster shouldn't be mandatory part of the challenge unless the goal is to slay or incapacitate the monster. As for traps, you made a small mistake. DMG39 states that you would be awarded XP for scenario B: "Overcoming the challenge of a trap involves encountering the trap, either by disarming it, avoiding it, or simply surviving the damage it deals." Emphasis mine. The challenge of the trap lies in that it slows or prevents the party's progress. This has nothing to do with damage taken by the PCs. When a Rogue successfully disarms a trap, no damage is dealt to the party, which results in no expended resources. Expended resources are a tendency typically associated with a CR. It's not a rule.
Mock26 10-02-07, 04:57 AM	So, using this logic: You give full XP to the party when they kill the enemy but take no damage, but only give half XP when the party does take damage (perhaps even significant damage)? Where in all of hades did you come up with this twisted and bizarre logic? Have you even read all of my posts? Or did you just decide to take one post and respond to it and didn't realize that doing so was taking it out of context? I don't see it as taking any skill, be it learned (such as disable device) or inate class skill (such as more hit points or higher constitution), to simply stand there and take a spring-loaded, poison tipped dart in the chest and survive. To me I equate it to nothing more than luck. Defeating an enemy in combat, or with diplomacy, or with bluff, or whatever, takes skill, be it an actual skill from any of the rule books or a skill in the traditional sense of the word (such as your skill with a sword and shield). So, regardless of whether or not you take damage you get the full XP because you used your skill to defeat your opponent. I don't think, nor did I imply, that you use less skill or use your skill poorly if you take damage. That is why I only give half XP for triggering an unseen trap and surviving it, because I don't think there is ANY skill involved in doing so. To me you simply made a huge blunder and got lucky. Defeating a foe in combat, regardless of whether you did it without taking any damage or if you were at death's door when your won, requires skill and training, and for that you get the full XP for the encounter. And as I said before and now say again, I don't think it makes sense that a fighter who accidentally triggers a trap and survives should get the same XP if a trained thief had taken the time to search for the trap, find it, and then disarm it. Like I said, I see surviving a triggered trap as being luck, not skill.
Lootus 10-02-07, 08:02 AM	As for traps, you made a small mistake. DMG39 states that you would be awarded XP for scenario B: "Overcoming the challenge of a trap involves encountering the trap, either by disarming it, avoiding it, or simply surviving the damage it deals." I took "encountering and avoiding" to mean you walk into a trap, set it off, but nobody takes damage, which I put under #1. It seemed to me like the XP was associated with the trap going off in some way, or by being neutralized/disabled - in either case, interacted with. Is this incorrect, do the players get XP for every trap they simply look at?
mvincent 10-02-07, 12:43 PM	Some things that I didn't see mentioned yet: 1) A creature that has fled will have likely used up some resources (per day abilities, hit points, ammo or other expendable gear, etc.). So the next time the party encounters the creature it will be without these resources. 2) If a creature is healed by another opponent somewhere in the dungeon, that opponent will have less resources when the party encounters them. 3) If the party is giving opponents the ability to maximize their resources (by allowing them to flee and heal up, or heal others, or giving them warning to boost themselves, etc.), it should not give the party extra XP. That seems to be the purpose of roleplaying to me (i.e. to try to make good tactical decisions). If you ask the writer's about the quasit issue, I am willing to bet they agree with me.
Mock26 10-02-07, 04:14 PM	I took "encountering and avoiding" to mean you walk into a trap, set it off, but nobody takes damage, which I put under #1. It seemed to me like the XP was associated with the trap going off in some way, or by being neutralized/disabled - in either case, interacted with. Is this incorrect, do the players get XP for every trap they simply look at? Technically, according to the rules, if you find a trap you get the XP for it.
Marcus Majarra 10-02-07, 06:50 PM	I took "encountering and avoiding" to mean you walk into a trap, set it off, but nobody takes damage, which I put under #1. It seemed to me like the XP was associated with the trap going off in some way, or by being neutralized/disabled - in either case, interacted with. Is this incorrect, do the players get XP for every trap they simply look at? Perhaps you should take the nature of a trap into consideration. What's the trap's purpose? It's to impede the passage of the PCs (generally speaking). Thus, the challenge lies in bypassing the trap. For this to happen, the PCs must encounter the trap, i.e. be confronted with it. In order to overcome the challenge, they must bypass the trap one way or another. If the PCs simply ignore the trap and move elsewhere, the challenge is not overcome. It's possible, however, to bypass the trap without setting it off. Consider a pit trap. The party rogue finds it and determines that it occupies a 10-ft. by 10-ft. area of the dungeon floor. If the party decides to jump over this area, they're effectively bypassing the trap. Thus, full experience is awarded. The simple reasoning is: the trap must be discovered (if not understood) and must be bypassed in order to overcome its challenge. 1) A creature that has fled will have likely used up some resources (per day abilities, hit points, ammo or other expendable gear, etc.). So the next time the party encounters the creature it will be without these resources. That's correct. The simple way of dealing with this is simple. Consider the "next time" encounter as an individual entity. Look at the creature, in its current state. Is its challenge significantly affected by its current condition? If the answer is yes, then an ad-hoc adjustment to its CR is required for this encounter. 2) If a creature is healed by another opponent somewhere in the dungeon, that opponent will have less resources when the party encounters them. It's the same as with #1. You consider the state of the creatures when they are encountered and determine if their CR is appropriate to their condition. If not, you adjust it. The main difference with #1 is that the ad-hoc adjustment will be made to another creature. 3) If the party is giving opponents the ability to maximize their resources (by allowing them to flee and heal up, or heal others, or giving them warning to boost themselves, etc.), it should not give the party extra XP. That seems to be the purpose of roleplaying to me (i.e. to try to make good tactical decisions). If you ask the writer's about the quasit issue, I am willing to bet they agree with me. I don't think roleplaying has anything to do with experience points. Experience is a mechanic driven by encounters and challenges. You fail to consider encounters individually for their worth and are undermining the challenge presented by each opponent in every encounter. As stated before, the simple way to demonstrate this would be to simply use identical creatures with different identities in each encounter. It doesn't make sense that you need to destroy a creature to overcome its challenge.
weasel0 10-02-07, 09:26 PM	I've been doing the Fallen Angel from the DL section. The party I'm running drove off the Ogre Mage once. The party was also involved with 2 of the other creatures, so in having driven him off, (i'm using the make-over CR5 Ogre Mage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a))I figured in an ad-hoc 33% boost to the exp I awarded the party for the extra head-ache. (I also re-added Cone of Cold 1x/day and SR at 17 due to the "condition" of the Mage in the campain AND bumped him up to a CR 6-the party is a 5-6 man Lv 5 group of known min-maxers) Later on, I'll award a full set of xp for his eventual defeat(though he might decide to simply leave the caverns when the PCs break out of the holding area after they got captured-he will come back later).
Jhulae 10-03-07, 12:49 AM	Where in all of hades did you come up with this twisted and bizarre logic? Have you even read all of my posts? Or did you just decide to take one post and respond to it and didn't realize that doing so was taking it out of context? I don't see it as taking any skill, be it learned (such as disable device) or inate class skill (such as more hit points or higher constitution), to simply stand there and take a spring-loaded, poison tipped dart in the chest and survive. To me I equate it to nothing more than luck. Defeating an enemy in combat, or with diplomacy, or with bluff, or whatever, takes skill, be it an actual skill from any of the rule books or a skill in the traditional sense of the word (such as your skill with a sword and shield). So, regardless of whether or not you take damage you get the full XP because you used your skill to defeat your opponent. I don't think, nor did I imply, that you use less skill or use your skill poorly if you take damage. That is why I only give half XP for triggering an unseen trap and surviving it, because I don't think there is ANY skill involved in doing so. To me you simply made a huge blunder and got lucky. Defeating a foe in combat, regardless of whether you did it without taking any damage or if you were at death's door when your won, requires skill and training, and for that you get the full XP for the encounter. And as I said before and now say again, I don't think it makes sense that a fighter who accidentally triggers a trap and survives should get the same XP if a trained thief had taken the time to search for the trap, find it, and then disarm it. Like I said, I see surviving a triggered trap as being luck, not skill. A rogue has a +14 bonus to disarm traps. According to what I'm reading you would *not* be giving exp (or full exp, anyway) to the party if: 1) The trap DC is 35 and the rogue, even though she's definitley got some skill, can't ever disable it (and has a very good chance of 'setting it off'). 2) The trap DC is 20 and the rogue rolls a 1, setting the trap off, even though, given all the odds, it should be very easy for her to disable. Now, if your party doesn't include a rogue (or similar), they'll never even be able to *find* traps with search DCs of 20 or higher, even with 20th level characters. According, again, to your logic, well, even though they can never find a trap, a group of four characters without a rogue or similar doesn't get full exp even though they have to use resources (in spells, potions, whatever). Whereas, if they included a rogue (or similar), they'd get full exp even if they use no resources (because the rogue happens to roll well). Basically, you punish the players (via exp loss) if none of them wants to play a rogue (or similar). I'm sorry, that just doesn't sit right with me.
Mock26 10-03-07, 02:31 AM	Basically, you punish the players (via exp loss) if none of them wants to play a rogue (or similar). It isn't a punishment to not reward them for something that they didn't earn.
Jhulae 10-03-07, 02:42 AM	It isn't a punishment to not reward them for something that they didn't earn. Because of their RP choices. Interesting. And thanks for addressing the rest of my post, specifically about a party that has a rogue. Now, here's a very basic setup. There's a long hallway with pressure plates that activate a trap. So, what kind of exp do you reward if the party includes a rogue and: 1) they find the trap, but instead of taking the time to disarm it (because the rogue might fail or whatever), the party spellcaster summons a critter to run down the the hallway and set off the trap. 2) the party spellcaster casts fly on everyone and they fly over the pressure plates. 3) the party spellcaster casts a spell that lets them circumvent the trap by somehow burrowing through the surrounding wall. 4) the party just tosses something down the hallway instead of letting the rogue disarm the trap. And, here's another question for you. A Barbarian gets tons of HP (the most of any core class), isn't able to spot a trap like a rogue, doesn't get Disable Device, and yet *does* get trapsense as a class ability. If a barbarian wasn't designed in *some way* to charge through traps and survive based on his massive amount of HP and training, why do they get trapsense?
Mock26 10-03-07, 04:20 AM	Because of their RP choices. Interesting. If they choose to not have a rogue, or any other class for that matter, I won't cater my campaign to them. My group knows this, and they accept that fact, fully. And thanks for addressing the rest of my post, specifically about a party that has a rogue. And thanks for obviously NOT reading all of my posts in this thread. If you had you would have noticed where I said that I didn't like the idea of a trained thief getting the same XP for finding and disarming a trap as someone who simply blundered into a trap and merely survived it. The use of the term blundered means that they didn't find the trap, at all! In my game if the trap is not found at all then there is NO WAY for anyone to get full XP for the trap. Now, here's a very basic setup. There's a long hallway with pressure plates that activate a trap. So, what kind of exp do you reward if the party includes a rogue and: 1) they find the trap, but instead of taking the time to disarm it (because the rogue might fail or whatever), the party spellcaster summons a critter to run down the the hallway and set off the trap. 2) the party spellcaster casts fly on everyone and they fly over the pressure plates. 3) the party spellcaster casts a spell that lets them circumvent the trap by somehow burrowing through the surrounding wall. 4) the party just tosses something down the hallway instead of letting the rogue disarm the trap. And, here's another question for you. A Barbarian gets tons of HP (the most of any core class), isn't able to spot a trap like a rogue, doesn't get Disable Device, and yet *does* get trapsense as a class ability. If a barbarian wasn't designed in *some way* to charge through traps and survive based on his massive amount of HP and training, why do they get trapsense? In all cases the rogue gets 1/2 XP for finding the trap and whoever took action to avoid or set off the trap gets 1/2 XP for creative roleplaying. That would be, in order, the spellcaster, the spellcaster, the spellcaster, and whoever came up with the idea to toss the something down the hallway. As for your question about barbarians, I suggest you take it to the people who created the barbarian class. For some strange reason I wasn't consulted on the creation of that particular class. And since you asked, in regards to your previous post the rogue would only get 1/2 XP for finding the trap. If the trap is beyond her ability then she doesn't get full XP. If she bungles her die roll and triggers an easy trap she'd still only get 1/2 XP. I am also curious as to why in hades you are getting so worked up over something that in absolutely no way affects you and is a "system" that my players fully accept and support. Now, stop trying to bait me into an argument or in some perverse hope that you'll get me to contradict myself. Not only is it against the forum rules but it is also in extremely poor taste and highly immature.
Jhulae 10-03-07, 07:08 AM	Now, stop trying to bait me into an argument or in some perverse hope that you'll get me to contradict myself. Not only is it against the forum rules but it is also in extremely poor taste and highly immature. Thanks for telling me why I'm asking these questions of you. I honestly had no idea about my intentions when I wrote these posts, but now, thanks to you, I know why. :rolleyes: Isn't your comment against the forum rules too? Now, if you'll actually want to know why all the questions: As happened to myself in a different thread, I'm trying to *fully* understand your position on things. Do I support those positions myself? Not really. But knowing what *you think* is informative to me, because *maybe* it might actually make me re-think some things (as posts in the past have). And, I read your posts differentiating the trained thief/blundered issue. Which is why I asked questions about how you'd handle a 'trained thief' finding yet tripping traps, since you *hadn't* addressed that in your previous posts.
Frugal 10-03-07, 09:35 AM	In all cases the rogue gets 1/2 XP for finding the trap and whoever took action to avoid or set off the trap gets 1/2 XP for creative roleplaying. That would be, in order, the spellcaster, the spellcaster, the spellcaster, and whoever came up with the idea to toss the something down the hallway. You do realise that the group is supposed to get the XP right, not individuals? If you do this for traps then do you go back to the old school idea of whoever actually kills the creature is the one that gets the XP? Or maybe a little more complicated and break it down by damage dealt? If you don't, and give the whole group equal XP for creatures, then why shaft the rest of the party for traps? What if the rogue finds the trap, another player comes up with the work around and the caster casts the spell? 1/3 each shafts the rogue and caster, but not giving the other character some XP for the idea discourages them from coming up with ideas for how to circumvent things like this.
Mock26 10-03-07, 01:09 PM	You do realise that the group is supposed to get the XP right, not individuals? If you do this for traps then do you go back to the old school idea of whoever actually kills the creature is the one that gets the XP? Or maybe a little more complicated and break it down by damage dealt? If you don't, and give the whole group equal XP for creatures, then why shaft the rest of the party for traps? What if the rogue finds the trap, another player comes up with the work around and the caster casts the spell? 1/3 each shafts the rogue and caster, but not giving the other character some XP for the idea discourages them from coming up with ideas for how to circumvent things like this. I am aware that that is what the rules state. But, I disagree with it. For example, a rogue finds a trap but decides that he can't disarm it. The party mage casts teleport and the entire group is instantly teleported down the hall past the trap. What did the rest of the group do? They did absolutely nothing except to possibly hold hands while being teleported. Why then should they get experience points for not doing anything? In regards to combat it is divided equally among those who participated in the combat, because it was a team effort to defeat the enemy. If someone didn't participate in the combat then they wouldn't get any of the experience points for that combat. In your example the rogue would get 1/2 of the trap's XP value for finding the trap. The person who came up with the work around would get 1/2 the trap's XP for the idea, and the caster of the spell would get 1/2 of the trap's XP. If two people found the trap at the same time they would each get 1/2 of the trap's XP. If 20 people worked together to come up with a work around for the trap they'd each get 1/2 of the trap's XP. If one of those persons was the person who found the trap he would get 1/2 of the trap's XP for finding the trap (which would net him full XP). But, there are a million possible examples and we could banter this back and forth for a million posts. My point all along has been that if a trap is not found and is triggered NO ONE gets full XP for the trap. If the entire group got caught in the trap when it was triggered everyeone in the group would get 1/2 XP for surviving the trap. If only one person was caught in the trap then only that person would get 1/2 XP for the trap. As for getting full XP, generally speaking in my game only the rogue would get full XP for finding and disarming the trap, but this is because of how my players play the game, not because of me. There are times when someone else does get full XP, but that is rare, but only because of the way my group plays the game. And, yes, I am aware that this is slightly at odds with how I deal with XP in combat. When the entire group is involved in a combat encounter they work as a team to defeat their enemy, so they share the XP for that encounter, even if they missed with every single attack (they were still in the battle, exposed to danger, and trying to hit the enemy, and standing there getting repeatedly stabbed by their enemy at least kept that monster busy while the better/luckier members of the group were dispatching the other monsters). If, however, someone in the group decided, for whatever reason, that they were going to stand in the back and not participate, then they would get no XP for that encounter. I apply this same philosophy to my traps.
mvincent 10-03-07, 02:24 PM	I am aware that that is what the rules state. But, I disagree with it.Fair enough. I normally avoid subjective, philosophical discussions (since there is no right or wrong), but here are a few reason why D&D might've gone away from the individual XP system: 1) Calculating XP separately can be a pain 2) Meticulous balance of encounter types would be required to avoid XP disparity among players. 3) 'Spotlight' time is its own reward. Players that are given less spotlight time should not be further penalized. 4) If you are at the table, you are participating. How much you are able to affect the encounter is more within the DM's control than yours... but you're at least there making the effort. So when Joe 'do my own thing" rogue sneaks away from the party to go exploring, everyone else at the table still get's XP for anything he encounters and kills... not just because they are there in case the rogue needs help (healing, backup, etc.), but because awarding XP to just that selfish, attention-hogging, non-team-player rogue would be encouraging such behavior.
Frugal 10-03-07, 02:58 PM	2) Meticulous balance of encounter types would be required to avoid XP disparity among players. I just thought I'd pull this one out and elaborate on this. This becomes a major issue with classes that don't have the opportunity to contribute in other ways. Take the fighter, or most/all of the other melee types, they primarily work in combat and have very little impact outside of it. Mock256 already said that he does give out equal XP for combat, so if we take the fighter types as the baseline, it's basically saying, "play a rogue and you'll get extra XP". When you look at it this way, I really don't think it's fair, in 3ed there's already enough issues with how versatile some classes are or aren't, this just reinforces that imbalance by encouraging you to play classes like that so that you can snag extra XP that just plain isn't available to the less versatile classes.
Mock26 10-03-07, 05:29 PM	Fair enough. I normally avoid subjective, philosophical discussions (since there is no right or wrong), but here are a few reason why D&D might've gone away from the individual XP system: 1) Calculating XP separately can be a pain 2) Meticulous balance of encounter types would be required to avoid XP disparity among players. 3) 'Spotlight' time is its own reward. Players that are given less spotlight time should not be further penalized. 4) If you are at the table, you are participating. How much you are able to affect the encounter is more within the DM's control than yours... but you're at least there making the effort. So when Joe 'do my own thing" rogue sneaks away from the party to go exploring, everyone else at the table still get's XP for anything he encounters and kills... not just because they are there in case the rogue needs help (healing, backup, etc.), but because awarding XP to just that selfish, attention-hogging, non-team-player rogue would be encouraging such behavior. The only times I really award individual XP is for traps, when someone comes up with a creative idea (in which case I give a roleplaying bonus), or when someone seperates from the group. There are other times, but they are few and far between. And like I said, for combat, even the person who participates but misses every single time would still get an equal share of the XP. I would like to point out that in my game the person who seperates from the group isn't getting rewarded because he gets play time proportional to the rest of the group (meaning that in a group of five one person off by himself would get 5 minutes of play time while the other four players would get 20 minutes of play time. So, he'll have far less time in which to earn XP. Additionally, my dungeons are deadly (I play monsters realisitically and to the full extent of their intelligence) and if Joe was stupid enough to send his character off on his own chances are he'd die the first time he encountered a monster because that monster (or monsters as the case may be) would be geared up to fight the entire group and I won't change that for something such as going off on your own. ======================================== =============== I just thought I'd pull this one out and elaborate on this. This becomes a major issue with classes that don't have the opportunity to contribute in other ways. Take the fighter, or most/all of the other melee types, they primarily work in combat and have very little impact outside of it. Mock256 already said that he does give out equal XP for combat, so if we take the fighter types as the baseline, it's basically saying, "play a rogue and you'll get extra XP". When you look at it this way, I really don't think it's fair, in 3ed there's already enough issues with how versatile some classes are or aren't, this just reinforces that imbalance by encouraging you to play classes like that so that you can snag extra XP that just plain isn't available to the less versatile classes. I like to think, though, that there are VERY few people who would play a rogue for that reason. I think that most people who play a rogue would do so primarily because they want to play a rogue or because they feel that the group needs a rogue.
mvincent 10-03-07, 05:40 PM	in my game the person who seperates from the group isn't getting rewarded because he gets play time proportional to the rest of the group (meaning that in a group of five one person off by himself would get 5 minutes of play time while the other four players would get 20 minutes of play time. What if he decides to do a little recon while the others are sleeping?
Mock26 10-03-07, 05:50 PM	What if he decides to do a little recon while the others are sleeping? Fortunately that would never happen in my group. And if it did I'd quietly remind the player that it is a game for the group, not a game just for him If, and only if the rest of the group agreed, then I'd let him wander off. But I would still limit is time, though not as restrictively. It is unfortunate that my group can only get together once every two weeks. This is also fortunate as everyone in my group is an adult who is mature enough to realize and respect the fact that everyone is there to play the game and that hogging the spotlight is detrimental to the group. So, they refrain from doing it. My group does have a tradition that is kind of funny. New players are not told about not sneaking off on their own. This is a request that my players made to me, one I gladly oblige. The reason for this is that early in my group most of the players all wandered off on their own at one point or another, and they all got their noses seriously bloodied (and in the case of one dwarf, got his beard shaved by a bunch of kobolds!) and they all learned that there is safety in numbers. They like to let new players experience the same thing.
Finarin Panjoro 10-03-07, 06:45 PM	I always defer to the overcoming challenges guideline in the DMG. Even to the extent of over-ruling their rules on traps. A trap's purpose is to injure or kill someone. If it succeeds in doing that then it was not overcome. It was victorious. Just as the PCs don't gain experience for being defeated by a monster, they do not gain experience for a trap that fulfills its purpose. However this doesn't mean that taking any damage from a trap negates its XP value. I always award XP for traps that are found and avoided (even if that just means walking around it) because that trap has been overcome. I also award XP for traps that are intentionally triggered so that they can be bypassed (such as if a barbarian triggers the trap so the rest of the party can run through while it resets). I also award XP for traps that are triggered but fail to damage (successfully saved against, misses, etc). But a trap that is not found and damages a PC grants no XP, nor does a trap that is no found and not triggered (as it is unencountered at that point). A fleeing enemy grants XP if his purpose is defeated. If he's trying to kill the PCs and he flees his purpose was overcome. If he later comes back at full hp they can gain XP again. If he comes back unhealed they may gain reduced XP for the second encounter (because he's a weaker encounter than the first one for which they already gained full XP). However if the enemy is staging hit and run attacks and his only goal is to damage, slow down, or tire the players they will get no XP if he gets away because he succeeded in his goal. Likewise a guard whose purpose is to raise an alarm or fight of interlopers yields full XP awards to a party who sneaks, bluffs, charms, or otherwise bypasses him without fighting him (this does not include teleporting as I don't consider him encountered under those conditions). The thing I don't like about the whole "if it eats up party resources you should gain experience" shtick is that if this is the case then the party should gain experience when they are successfully pickpocketed or robbed. Their resources have been reduced so XP should be awarded. Overcoming challenges seems like the best measure of XP in all cases to me.
mvincent 10-03-07, 06:58 PM	The thing I don't like about the whole "if it eats up party resources you should gain experience" shtick is that if this is the case then the party should gain experience when they are successfully pickpocketed or robbed. Their resources have been reduced so XP should be awarded.Nice illustration. I see your point that a trap is essentially mugging you (but stealing hp instead of gp). Of course, PC's typically have a chance to 'get right' with a pickpocket at least (after you notice your missing coins). Once you lose hp to a trap, you can't really get revenge (or get your hp back from it). Still, I reckon that if a published adventure presented a pickpocketing scenario, the PC's might get XP simply for being pick-pocketed (similar to a trap). Anyone know of such a published "get something stolen" scenario?
Marcus Majarra 10-03-07, 10:16 PM	I can't remember if I ever saw it published, but I do remember seeing an adventure with an Ethereal Filcher that involves the party losing equipment. I can't go into details as this is simply a vague memory. Dealing with such a scenario involves more creative work than anything else. Say, for example, that the Filcher strikes in a way that no one in the party is ever aware of it. No encounter actually takes place, since the party is not faced with an actual challenge. Something merely happens beyond their control. Since no encounter takes place, no challenge is present, so no experience is awarded. It does, however, affect any encounters in which the party is missing equipment, assuming the missing equipment presents a significant handicap. Going by DMG guidelines, this should make the encounter more rewarding (see DMG39). In any case, I prefer to avoid any idea that justifies a challenge's worth by the actual resources it costs the party. In other words, a challenge doesn't have to cost the party anything to actually be challenging. The average costs are expected values, and since we're dealing with averages, there will be some encounters with below average costs. It's entirely possible that a party facing a Boneclaw take no damage at all on account of unusual luck (bad for the monster, good for the PCs). This doesn't affect the nature of the challenge. What is good to keep in mind, however, is that if an encounter element ends up costing some party resources, it's clear that this encounter element does present some kind of challenge, and overcoming it awards experience.
Nom 10-04-07, 03:43 AM	A trap's purpose is to injure or kill someone. If it succeeds in doing that then it was not overcome. It was victorious.A monster's purpose is to injure or kill someone. If it succeeds in doing that then it was not overcome. It was victorious. Unless, of course, you're uncomfortable with the idea that a monster that succeeds in an attack roll doesn't grant XP. Just as the PCs don't gain experience for being defeated by a monster, they do not gain experience for a trap that fulfills its purpose.The trouble with this view is that a trap's ultimate goal is to prevent the PCs from getting past, just the same as a guard or monster. If the PCs (or some of them) survive whatever the trap can throw at them and can continue onward then they have overcome the encounter, just as if it were a monster. PCs who are not ambushed by the trap already are rewarded by having more resources left; you don't need to penalise them further by ruling that surving an ambush grants no XP.
Frugal 10-04-07, 08:12 AM	I like to think, though, that there are VERY few people who would play a rogue for that reason. I think that most people who play a rogue would do so primarily because they want to play a rogue or because they feel that the group needs a rogue. My point though is that it's still free XP. Odds are the rogue is going to be the one finding traps, so if 1/2 the XP is going toward finding the trap then they are virtually guaranteed to get that XP. Yes, a few other classes will have the skills or abilities to detect them too but odds are that any situation where they spot a trap, the rogue will too, so that's not an issue for the rogue. Then he's also likely one of the most capable people at disabling the trap, and can do it without using any resources, so all the better. So the end result is that he gets the detection XP almost all the time, and will get a pretty good share of the XP for bypassing/disabling the trap too. I'm not saying that this will necessarily encourage someone to play a rogue, but I'm saying it rewards someone for playing one. Or, taken another way, it shafts people for not playing one (or another class that can detect and/or disable traps). Say we have 2 players, 1 really wants to play a Paladin and the other really wants to play a Rogue. If each player plays the class he wants then one of them is rewarded for playing that choice (will likely get extra XP for finding traps), while the other gets nothing. If we assume everything else is equal (RP, creative ideas, etc) then the Paladin player will never catch up to the Rogue. I really don't see that as fair.
Finarin Panjoro 10-04-07, 01:03 PM	A monster's purpose is to injure or kill someone. If it succeeds in doing that then it was not overcome. It was victorious. I suppose I should have said a trap's sole purpose is to injure or kill someone. In my campaigns monsters rarely have injuring as their sole purpose. They are attacking for a reason; to prevent passage, to attain food, to escape, to kill, etc. The end result is that defeating the monster in combat or forcing it to retreat typically overcomes the challenge it represented. I do not agree that this is the case with a trap that utterly succeeds at what it was designed to do. The trouble with this view is that a trap's ultimate goal is to prevent the PCs from getting past, just the same as a guard or monster. I also disagree with this. This is the purpose of a locked door or a barrier. A guard, a monster, or a trap is there to injure, kill, or alert others to the presence of intruders. In the case of a trap its sole ability is to achieve surprise, activate, and deliver its effect. If it does this it has succeeded in its task. It has achieved its maximum possible effectiveness in the encounter. For a monster the maximum possible effectiveness is different, normally max effect would be a TPK for which the TPK'd PCs do not recieve any experience points (and if rezzed, they typically lose experience). I don't feel that awarding XP for blundering into a trap is appropriate even if the PCs survive. I do feel that XP should be awarded for detecting, disarming, avoiding, or mitigating the traps effects. For example, if the PCs failed to detect a trap (bad search whatever), but suspected a trap was present (skeleton on the floor or blood smears, etc) and cast spells on the rogue such as Cat's grace and Stoneskin, had him walk through the trapped area, and the trap did reduced damage to him because of their planning they would be awarded XP for overcoming it. If the PCs detected the trap and had no way of mitigating it and simply decided we've got to go through it to carry on I would award them XP for overcoming it. However if they just blindly walked into it and are affected by it I don't deem that challenge to be overcome. For the sake of consistency I should add that I've houseruled that the Alarm spell functions as a trap and may be disarmed by a rogue, and despite the fact that the spell itself does not present a direct risk, they do recieve XP for bypassing it.
Frugal 10-04-07, 01:22 PM	I suppose I should have said a trap's sole purpose is to injure or kill someone. In my campaigns monsters rarely have injuring as their sole purpose. They are attacking for a reason; to prevent passage, to attain food, to escape, to kill, etc. The end result is that defeating the monster in combat or forcing it to retreat typically overcomes the challenge it represented. I do not agree that this is the case with a trap that utterly succeeds at what it was designed to do. Ah, but a trap's purpose isn't to kill or injure, usually a trap's purpose is to deter, or protect, or delay the PCs. For instance, a tomb is trapped in order to protect the treasures inside from grave robbers; if the PCs enter the tomb, and blunder through every trap, yet still manage to steal the treasures then they've defeated the traps.
mvincent 10-04-07, 01:30 PM	if the PCs enter the tomb, and blunder through every trap, yet still manage to steal the treasures then they've defeated the traps.That seems like a good point. The end result is pretty much the same as carefully disarming the traps.
Finarin Panjoro 10-04-07, 02:20 PM	Frugal, you mention that a trap's purpose can be to deter. Indeed if it does deter, that is, if it is found and the PCs turn back without activating or bypassing it I would not award XP for that. Let me ask you this. If there are two entrances to the tomb, both trapped, and the PCs enter through one and bypass/overcome those traps and steal the treasure, would you award them experience points for the traps on the other entrance? I would not. This is the same reason I would not award XP for teleporting directly to the treasure past all of the traps. I see your point (which I don't totally disagree with) as a sort of macro-view of the entire situation. If you deal with each trap as an individual encounter (as the XP system does) then most traps grandest acheivement is to successfully damage a PC or PCs. Killing them is a possible, though unlikely side-effect, of a CR appropriate trap. From a mechanical stand point a trap's actual effect is to wear down the party by removing resources (hp, ability damage, spells/healing expended) etc. If the trap succeeds in doing that to the best of its ability (without being detected or intentionally mitigated) then I see this as the equivalent of the PCs losing the fight with the trap. If it was a Wail of the Banshee trap and it killed all of them, none of the PCs would gain XP for it. Even if they were rezzed they still would not gain XP for encountering it. If a Fireball trap delivers maximum damage to the party (but doesn't kill any of them) why should they get XP for that? It did the same thing as the Wail of the Banshee trap. However if a rogue, ranger, or monk went ahead and unintentionally activated that fireball trap and through a successful save and evasion he avoided its effects (ie. no one was damaged) then I'd award XP for it. The party made good use of its available resources and precluded the trap from being effective. If only some of the party avoided its effects (it went off and damaged others in the party because they were too close) then its still a no XP or a partial XP situation in my book (if over half went undamaged I'd probably award half XP). I would argue that what you're describing, a situation where the PCs blunder into every trap and still succeed in pillaging the tomb, is not a CR appropriate challenge. If the traps are the only protection (no monsters as well) then they need to be very dangerous traps for the CR of the party facing them and they need to have a chance of actually succeeding at what they're supposed to do (that is kill any PC they don't deter). My bet is that as far as actual gameplay is concerned, those traps are there to wear down the party before they encounter the mummy in the treasure room. If the traps have completely worn them down because they blundered into every one of them then they succeeded in their purpose and the mummy has a much easier fight on his hands. So no XP for the those traps. Again I know I'm house ruling this, but that's how I play it. I'm not insisting anyone has to agree with me or adopt this style.
Marcus Majarra 10-04-07, 11:07 PM	Frugal, you mention that a trap's purpose can be to deter. Indeed if it does deter, that is, if it is found and the PCs turn back without activating or bypassing it I would not award XP for that. And you would be right in doing so. That's the trap's purpose. You award experience to PCs for overcoming this purpose. In other words, if the trap isn't in a position to deter the PCs (as you stated), it awards no experience. Let me ask you this. If there are two entrances to the tomb, both trapped, and the PCs enter through one and bypass/overcome those traps and steal the treasure, would you award them experience points for the traps on the other entrance? I would not. This is the same reason I would not award XP for teleporting directly to the treasure past all of the traps. I agree, in part. Teleporting could award experience, assuming the party is actually faced with a trap they can teleport beyond. If they're never faced with a trap, they never encounter it, which justifies not awarding experience. I see your point (which I don't totally disagree with) as a sort of macro-view of the entire situation. If you deal with each trap as an individual encounter (as the XP system does) then most traps grandest acheivement is to successfully damage a PC or PCs. Killing them is a possible, though unlikely side-effect, of a CR appropriate trap. From a mechanical stand point a trap's actual effect is to wear down the party by removing resources (hp, ability damage, spells/healing expended) etc. If the trap succeeds in doing that to the best of its ability (without being detected or intentionally mitigated) then I see this as the equivalent of the PCs losing the fight with the trap. On this, I believe you're wrong. A trap's grandest achievement is not to successfully damage a PC or PCs. Damage is just an expected tendency based on the trap's CR (but no CR guarantees damage). It's grandest achievement is preventing the PCs from moving beyond it. By doing so, its challenge is not overcome by the PCs. This is where no experience is awarded. If the party moves beyond the trap by their own abilities (even if it's sheer luck), then experience is awarded.
Finarin Panjoro 10-05-07, 10:48 AM	Marcus, by the rules you're absolutely correct. That is how the rules work. I just disagree with it and have houseruled it differently. IMO most CR appropriate traps are incapable of preventing a party from passing. For example: CR 3 Burning Hands Trap. 5d4 fire, Reflex DC 11 halves. Even if it manages to hit the entire 3rd level party for maximum damage with no one making a save it can't take the whole party down. The fighters will survive to revive everyone else (by then there should be a potion or two available to revive a healer). Most likely this trap will do about 12 points of damage or less (since the worst saves in the party have a 50% chance of success) and probably drop no one into negative hit points. A typical 3rd level party would be justified in believing that it could simply run through this trap and heal up on the other side. Now 4 such traps might be capable of preventing the party from passing (as long as they have time pressure and can't rest between them), but so would four CR 3 monsters. However the players would be required to successfully defeat/bypass the monsters in some way to gain experience for them. Whether this is by stealth, diplomacy, magic, or combat the players must expend a resource and/or make an active decision (sneak/talk/etc) to overcome the monster obstacle. I simply require the same active decision making process to come into play when handling traps. The other problem I have with looking at it that way is this. If there are 4 CR appropriate traps and the PCs blunder through 3 of them and the 4th turns them back, do you award XP for the 3 they blundered through? According to the rules yes, but according to your statement the traps won, they did prevent the PCs from reaching their destination. However in essence you're now treating the four traps as one CR 7 encounter instead of four CR 3 encounters (its an all or nothing prospect). My way, the players would not get XP for blundering into the traps either way, but if they succesfully bypassed or mitigated the effects of 3 of them and then turned back they would gain XP for the 3 they handled even though they didn't reach their destination. Under my rules, a party can still gain experience without finding and still triggering traps by mitigating their effects. If they suspect the tomb is trapped and so they buff up the barbarian and have him run through it triggering and suffering everything, but surviving it, then they have defeated those traps (though they still may have to find ways to bypass the ones with automatic resets, but they now know what and where they are). Another example, a mage who blunders into a pit trap, but prepared feather fall in advance has defeated that trap and gains experience. Likewise I would award XP for teleporting past a specific trap if you found the trap first and decided that porting was the best way to defeat it. But if you then teleport to the center of the tomb I'm not going to give you experience for any additional traps that you simply skip over. I know I'm not following the rules as written, but this is an area where I think the RAW is wrong. The rules as written essentially make traps free XP. You can literally walk down a hall and level up just by surviving by dint of high hit points. I require my PCs to EARN experience.
mvincent 10-05-07, 12:22 PM	If the traps are the only protection (no monsters as well) then they need to be very dangerous trapsTo be fair: it would probably have to be a pretty dangerous guard too in order to take down a party. That makes me want to analyze it: An average CR6 trap can do about 8d6 to 12d6 to an entire party (which can exceed the hp for some 6th lvl characters, so they'd be wise to stayed fully healed). Conversely an average CR 6 creature (average Salamander or Ettin) should only last about 2-4 rounds against a CR 6 party, and would seem to average less damage on average (though, it seems fairly balanced against traps that affect only 1 person). The more I analyze it, the more it seems like the designers put some thought into it.
mvincent 10-05-07, 12:29 PM	I would award XP for teleporting past a specific trap if you found the trap first and decided that porting was the best way to defeat it. But if you then teleport to the center of the tomb I'm not going to give you experience for any additional traps that you simply skip over.Heh... Schrodinger's trap :)
Finarin Panjoro 10-05-07, 02:46 PM	To be fair: it would probably have to be a pretty dangerous guard too in order to take down a party. That makes me want to analyze it: An average CR6 trap can do about 8d6 to 12d6 to an entire party (which can exceed the hp for some 6th lvl characters, so they'd be wise to stayed fully healed). Conversely an average CR 6 creature (average Salamander or Ettin) should only last about 2-4 rounds against a CR 6 party, and would seem to average less damage on average (though, it seems fairly balanced against traps that affect only 1 person). The more I analyze it, the more it seems like the designers put some thought into it. This is true, but I don't think it invalidates my revisions. The difference is with a trap you can literally blindly walk into it, trigger it, accept the consequences, and continue onward into the dungeon. Most traps can't follow you or harass you like a monster can. Once a monster is encountered you have to reach some kind of resolution with it or it can follow you and cause further problems. If the only dangers are traps, you can trigger it, stop, rest, recover, then walk through the next one, and repeat. Four damage oriented CR appropriate traps would utterly fail to prevent a barbarian with time and patience from casually strolling into any given local (such as the stereotypical lost tomb). So my feeling is that the traps intended purpose should be matched to its mechanical abilities. Most traps only have the mechanical capacity to harm the players (by injury, curse, ability damage, removal of assets, etc). If they utterly succeed in doing that then they have proven victorious and the PCs should not gain XP. I see this as more consistent with how XP is awarded for battling monsters. No XP is awarded for losing a fight though arguably you learn more from losing than from winning. By the same token no XP should be awarded for experiencing the full unmitigated effects of a device whose sole mechanical (meaning game mechanics) purpose is to effect you the way that it just did. The trap doesn't have the opportunity to do anything more to you than what it has already accomplished (unlike a monster). I just don't like the idea that you can be rewarded for stepping on a land mine. You should be rewarded for spotting/disarming/avoiding/negating/minimizing it.
mvincent 10-05-07, 03:25 PM	I see this as more consistent with how XP is awarded for battling monsters.An interesting side-note: a shrieker (the creature equivalent to an alarm type trap) is CR 1, but cannot damage the party at all. Presumeably, a party gets XP for this creature whether whether they blindly activated it or not.
Phrennzy 10-05-07, 04:03 PM	An interesting side-note: a shrieker (the creature equivalent to an alarm type trap) is CR 1, but cannot damage the party at all. Presumeably, a party gets XP for this creature whether whether they blindly activated it or not. Shriekers are a horrible mistake - they should not be listed as Creatures, but rather in the same way that Yellow Mold and Green Slime are listed - as dungeon features. A shrieker in an empty dungeon is just stupid. It is not worth any XP. All it does is make noise. It should, at best, ad hoc XP for any combat that occurs as a result of it's song.
Marcus Majarra 10-05-07, 11:46 PM	The other problem I have with looking at it that way is this. If there are 4 CR appropriate traps and the PCs blunder through 3 of them and the 4th turns them back, do you award XP for the 3 they blundered through? According to the rules yes, but according to your statement the traps won, they did prevent the PCs from reaching their destination. My statement says nothing to that effect. You need to consider a CR's challenge with respect to its encounter; not the adventure. While, in the larger picture, a tomb's traps might be there to prevent robbers from stealing the tomb's treasure, that is not their actual purpose. Traps effectively block access to certain areas by attempting to impede passage into these areas. As such, the PCs do get experience for only the first three traps because these traps were meant to stop the PCs progress and the PCs managed to progress despite these traps. Under my rules, a party can still gain experience without finding and still triggering traps by mitigating their effects. If they suspect the tomb is trapped and so they buff up the barbarian and have him run through it triggering and suffering everything, but surviving it, then they have defeated those traps (though they still may have to find ways to bypass the ones with automatic resets, but they now know what and where they are). Another example, a mage who blunders into a pit trap, but prepared feather fall in advance has defeated that trap and gains experience. Two things you need to keep in mind: 1) Things will generally work this way in actuality. 2) Hit points are a direct function of character skill/experience. As such, naturally having more hit points is a sign of skill. When dealing with traps that deal damage, surviving the damage-whether you blunder through the trap or not-is a sign of skill no different than having the evasion ability. Both are passive results of the character's experience and help mitigate a trap's damage. Nonetheless, a trap is no guarantee of damage or wasted resources, so these shouldn't be a factor in determining the trap's reward (although if they do deal damage or cost resources, it's obvious that the trap should award experience). Likewise I would award XP for teleporting past a specific trap if you found the trap first and decided that porting was the best way to defeat it. But if you then teleport to the center of the tomb I'm not going to give you experience for any additional traps that you simply skip over. On this, you're correct. You need to encounter a challenge to be awarded experience for it. No encounter means no experience. This is true, but I don't think it invalidates my revisions. The difference is with a trap you can literally blindly walk into it, trigger it, accept the consequences, and continue onward into the dungeon. Most traps can't follow you or harass you like a monster can. Once a monster is encountered you have to reach some kind of resolution with it or it can follow you and cause further problems. If the only dangers are traps, you can trigger it, stop, rest, recover, then walk through the next one, and repeat. Assuming this as a general rule is a mistake, IMHO. Yes, traps are static. This means they're stationary and won't pose a return threat unless the PCs actually return to the trap. Monsters, generally mobile, do have the potential to return on their own. This changes in no way the challenge they can present. The reason for this is because a challenge is based on the encounter it's present in. If a monster returns to fight like new in a later encounter, it's no different than encountering a new specimen of the monster's kind in a different encounter. By simple virtue of the monster's participation in both encounters, it's making both more challenging, which justifies awarding experience for removing the creature from the encounter in both times. While your claim makes sense if monsters do come back, they are not constrained to do so. And even if you do make them come back, what you're doing mechanically is no different than simply introducing another creature with identical statistics. This is why a monster's return value is of no consequence in terms of encounters and challenges. A monster's return value has more impact on roleplaying elements of the game (rather than mechanical ones). So my feeling is that the traps intended purpose should be matched to its mechanical abilities. Most traps only have the mechanical capacity to harm the players (by injury, curse, ability damage, removal of assets, etc). If they utterly succeed in doing that then they have proven victorious and the PCs should not gain XP. The first sentence makes no sense. You don't figure out your purpose by what you can do. You figure out your purpose by what you want to do. If what you can do enables you to achieve your goal easily, then you present a bigger challenge. As such, you can't consider a trap's purpose by its abilities. You determine its purpose (and, by extension, the nature of its challenge) by what it's meant to do: prevent creatures from passing. If the entire party takes heavy damage from the trap but moves beyond it, the creatures bypassed the trap and its challenge was overcome. If you want to establish a parallel with combat, imagine a 1st-level party faced with a goblin. By sheer luck, the goblin managed to deal 5-7 points of damage to every PC before going down. This is the same as a trap successfully dealing high damage to the party. In both cases, we're dealing with a challenge that dealt damage. In both cases, we're dealing with challenges that no longer present a challenge to the party. How was each overcome, then? The monster was slain; the party moved beyond the trap. It's as simple as this. Any other factors are simply general tendencies and will significantly vary according to circumstance. In the end, they are insignificant, because what matters is overcoming a challenge within an encounter. I just don't like the idea that you can be rewarded for stepping on a land mine. You should be rewarded for spotting/disarming/avoiding/negating/minimizing it. Actually, you're rewarded for managing to get beyond the land mine. The mine's purpose is to prevent enemy soldiers from moving through a land field. Even if your friend steps on one and you're hit by shrapnel that takes out your pinky, you can still move beyond the land mine. An interesting side-note: a shrieker (the creature equivalent to an alarm type trap) is CR 1, but cannot damage the party at all. Presumeably, a party gets XP for this creature whether whether they blindly activated it or not. The shrieker is just one of the monsters this edition should have done without. It's like the piercer in 2E.
Mock26 10-07-07, 02:41 AM	Heh... Schrodinger's trap :) Which would be simultaneously armed and triggered until it was actually discovered.
Finarin Panjoro 10-08-07, 09:20 AM	Marcus, your points are very well reasoned, but I remain unconvinced. I don't award experience points for experiencing injury. I would no more award experience for tripping and falling off a cliff than I would for blindly walking into a pit trap. I see your points about HP, monster encounters, etc. However, in my opinion, the encounter remains lost if the PCs are unable to mitigate the trap's effects. I see a trap more like a hit and run ambush. By RAW a party would gain no experience points for surviving an ambush by orc archers on a cliff above them if the orcs simply decided to wound them and retreat to ambush them a second time. These orcs were not defeated (if they killed one or two orcs they would gain XP for that, boosted for the favorable conditions the orcs enjoyed). If they encountered the same orcs later on (in a non-ambush setting) they would not gain additional experience based on their previous encounter. As you rightly point out, this would be treated as a separate encounter. The PCs would be considered to have lost the first encounter and would not be awarded XP. I don't see that as any different than a successfully triggered trap. I think I poorly explained my point about matching a trap's intended purpose to its mechanical abilities. I meant to say that if a trap's mechanical ability is to deliver damage (and nothing else) then the success of the encounter should be determined by how well it performs that function. If the trap's designer creates a trap that does nothing other than deliver damage then it seems reasonable to treat delivering damage as the trap's purpose. Now one can certainly argue that having high HP is a way of mitigating damage and thus if they survive the trap by virtue of high HP then they have mitigated it and should be awarded XP. I just don't agree with that position. Since the trap's function (and thus its designed purpose) is to deliver damage the trap has succeeded in what it was designed to do. I require that the PCs actually defeat the trap in some measure to gain XP from the encounter. This may actually happen passively (as with feather fall, or evasion), but usually it requires interaction and thought on the PCs part, just as they would be required to have killed some of those orc archers to gain XP from the cliff ambush I mentioned earlier. Also you correctly point out that in practice things generally do work out this way anyhow. My PCs almost always get XP for traps despite my ruling, because they almost never just blunder into a trap. They are usually expecting traps at appropriate times (becuase I design adventures in such a way that traps are a predicatable occurence, as they should be) and they are usually doing something to mitigate/prevent/disable/evade/avoid their effects.
Marcus Majarra 10-08-07, 01:12 PM	Marcus, your points are very well reasoned, but I remain unconvinced. I don't award experience points for experiencing injury. I would no more award experience for tripping and falling off a cliff than I would for blindly walking into a pit trap. I see your points about HP, monster encounters, etc. However, in my opinion, the encounter remains lost if the PCs are unable to mitigate the trap's effects. I see a trap more like a hit and run ambush. By RAW a party would gain no experience points for surviving an ambush by orc archers on a cliff above them if the orcs simply decided to wound them and retreat to ambush them a second time. These orcs were not defeated (if they killed one or two orcs they would gain XP for that, boosted for the favorable conditions the orcs enjoyed). If they encountered the same orcs later on (in a non-ambush setting) they would not gain additional experience based on their previous encounter. As you rightly point out, this would be treated as a separate encounter. The PCs would be considered to have lost the first encounter and would not be awarded XP. I don't see that as any different than a successfully triggered trap. Your entire reasoning would be coherent, if the trap's purpose was to merely harm the PCs, as opposed to prevent their passage. As it is, if an analogy with monsters must be made, the trap has more in common with a guardian monster than a hit-and-run monster. Both are stationary, and their primary purpose is to block access to another area (this is intrinsic by the stationary nature of traps). In the end, it all sums up to the nature of the challenge the party is faced with, in the context of the encounter the challenge is part of. I find this method to be an easy way of determining how much experience is awarded: 1) Clearly establish the encounter's limits. What exactly is the encounter? When does it begin? Where does it end? 2) Determine the nature of the challenge(s) within the encounter. What role do these challenges take on? What's the purpose of the challenge(s)? 3) Determine victory conditions for the PCs, with respect to the purpose of the challenge(s) found in 2). Only take into account the purpose of the challenge, and make an abstraction of whatever means the challenge has of accomplishing its purpose. The means are not important; the ends are. The association is simple: if the challenge achieves its ends, the challenge wins. Thus, victory conditions lie in preventing the challenge from achieving its ends. Here are a few practical guidelines to go by: A) Guardians: a guardian's purpose is to block access to an item, a person, or a place. This includes all guard creatures and virtually every trap. This type of challenge is overcome by accessing whatever the guardian's blocking. Weathering out the guardian's offensive is a valid way of overcoming this challenge, as this means the party is sufficiently tough to bypass it. Thus, the guardian isn't strong enough to prevent the party from going through. B) Flags: a flag's primary purpose is to escape capture or defeat at the hands of the PCs. Most opponents that are ambushed by the PCs and whose intentions primarily include escaping are flags. This type of challenge is overcome by capturing or defeating the flag. C) Destroyers: a destroyer's purpose is to defeat the PCs. Most random encounters and ambushes that result in direct confrontation hold challenges that fall into this category. This type of challenge is overcome when the PCs prevent the destroyer from achieving this goal (within this encounter). This can be achieved in many ways, typically through defeating or capturing the destroyer, or forcing it to escape. D) Harriers: a harrier's purpose is to harass the PCs. It's goal is never to disable the PCs altogether (and should it really be attempting to do so, it falls under the destroyer category). The PCs overcome this type of challenge by preventing the harrier from harassing them (in this encounter), no matter how they achieve this. This is the hardest type of challenge to adjudicate, since its reward will be proportionate to the CR the harrier actually presents (based on how much harassment the challenge is intended to do). 4) Now that you've established victory conditions for every challenge, you need to verify the challenge's CR. If nothing is preventing the challenge from being fully effective against a generic party, use its normal CR. If it's otherwise weakened or strengthened in a significant way, adjust the CR appropriately. This recipe works well for awarding experience and proves very coherent, as it requires that you take into account the purpose of a challenge and how this is overcome. I think I poorly explained my point about matching a trap's intended purpose to its mechanical abilities. I meant to say that if a trap's mechanical ability is to deliver damage (and nothing else) then the success of the encounter should be determined by how well it performs that function. If the trap's designer creates a trap that does nothing other than deliver damage then it seems reasonable to treat delivering damage as the trap's purpose. But this isn't the trap's purpose. This is just a means to an end. It has no significance over the nature of the challenge. Challenges of all sorts (generally) have multiple ways of achieving their ends and these methods are of no relevance to how the challenge is overcome; they become relevant in gauging the difficulty of the challenge and only in this aspect. If a trap deals plenty of damage to the PCs but fails from keeping them from moving through, the trap failed, despite its best attempt. It's like a 1st-level party facing a single goblin. Even if the goblin deals plenty of damage to the party, but falls, the goblin failed, despite its best attempt.
Finarin Panjoro 10-08-07, 01:52 PM	Marcus I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your position is utterly reasonable and you defend it well. I just don't agree with it. My way is correct from my perspective (I admit it is not correct by the RAW which rules as you do, but I consider it an improvement over the RAW). Experience points are an inherently meta-game concept and from a meta-game perspective, the purpose of most traps is not to deny the PCs access to an area. This is because most traps are incapable of doing that to a CR appropriate party. In most cases a CR appropriate trap's (meta-game) purpose is exactly what it is capable of doing: damaging the party. A barred metal door has a better chance of denying access to an area than a damaging trap does, but the standard rules do not award XP for overcoming a barred metal door. So from that perspective I award XP for defeating the trap's meta-game purpose, which is to inflict damage on the party. I do not see a trap as resembling an encounter with a guardian monster. A guardian monster can move, often speak, make choices, retreat, summon aid, etc. I see a trap as resembling a preset ambush. Both are static surprise attacks designed to deter, injure, or kill a vulnerable party. Since PCs are not granted XP for surviving an ambush without taking down their ambushers (overcoming the encounter) I do not see it as reasonable to award them XP for being surprised by and taking damage from a trap. As I've said I'm aware that this is a departure from the RAW and I believe it to be more internally consistent than the RAW.
mvincent 10-08-07, 02:33 PM	As I've said I'm aware that this is a departure from the RAWYour viewpoint is entirely reasonable. If 3.x D&D had done it this, no one would question it. I believe the concept must be somewhat subjective (i.e. just a preference thing)... otherwise the D&D writer's wouldn't have chosen the method (and no one here would be defending it). WotC probably had reasons for choosing the current method... maybe they discovered that players enjoy trap encounters more this way or somesuch. Either way, if it is just a preference thing then there is not much to debate. However, it is worth noting that your preference may not coincide with others in your play group. Nothing wrong with that (since your preference is completely reasonable), but it's worth addressing only because it is a deviation from RAW.
Nom 10-08-07, 06:41 PM	A barred metal door has a better chance of denying access to an area than a damaging trap does, but the standard rules do not award XP for overcoming a barred metal door.Because there is no risk in attempting the challenge. Attempting to pass a trap - even if you do not know it is there - entails risk. The problem with ruling otherwise is that it is unfair. Consider 3 parties: * party A detects and disarms the trap, and continues onward. * party B detects the trap but cannot disarm it, so they trigger it and continue onward. * party C fails to detect the trap and triggers it, then continues onward. Parties B and C take more damage from the trap than party A, but all 3 parties end up in a situation where the trap is no longer impeding their progress. To give less XP to B or C than to A is to double-penalise - not only have they used more resources, thus reducing their ability to overcome future encounters, but you're docking them XP as well. "Yes, it was dangerous and risky, and yes you survived, but I'm going to withhold XP as if you had not passed the encounter." Withholding XP from characters who get turned back makes sense - they have not yet passed the encounter and can attempt it again once they re-group. Withholding XP from characters who pass the encounter in a sub-optimal manner is a double penalty.
Jhulae 10-09-07, 12:40 AM	Because there is no risk in attempting the challenge. Attempting to pass a trap - even if you do not know it is there - entails risk. The problem with ruling otherwise is that it is unfair. Consider 3 parties: * party A detects and disarms the trap, and continues onward. * party B detects the trap but cannot disarm it, so they trigger it and continue onward. * party C fails to detect the trap and triggers it, then continues onward. Parties B and C take more damage from the trap than party A, but all 3 parties end up in a situation where the trap is no longer impeding their progress. To give less XP to B or C than to A is to double-penalise - not only have they used more resources, thus reducing their ability to overcome future encounters, but you're docking them XP as well. "Yes, it was dangerous and risky, and yes you survived, but I'm going to withhold XP as if you had not passed the encounter." Withholding XP from characters who get turned back makes sense - they have not yet passed the encounter and can attempt it again once they re-group. Withholding XP from characters who pass the encounter in a sub-optimal manner is a double penalty. QFT, and my position on the matter exactly.
Marcus Majarra 10-09-07, 01:05 AM	Marcus I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Fair enough. I understand your point of view as well, despite my disagreement. Just keep in mind that, in your perspective, you're effectively penalizing PCs for lack of performance. Well, maybe not penalizing; more like cutting down on rewards. Furthermore, I hope you understand that this way of thinking implies foregoing any general consistency regarding experience awards (as I can't think of any DM who would award less experience for defeating a monster while taking high damage than otherwise). Some more thoughts on your comments: Experience points are an inherently meta-game concept and from a meta-game perspective, the purpose of most traps is not to deny the PCs access to an area. This is because most traps are incapable of doing that to a CR appropriate party. In most cases a CR appropriate trap's (meta-game) purpose is exactly what it is capable of doing: damaging the party. Well, I can see where you're getting this feeling from. Of course, you shouldn't expect a CR 3 trap to take out a 3rd-level party (or even a single 3rd-level character). As it is, challenges of CRs equal to party level will generally cost the party about 20% of its daily resources. This cost entails whatever the party might expend in daily resources before bypassing the trap (in other words, overcoming its challenge). If you want to look at it another way, imagine that instead of the aforementioned CR 3 trap, the party had to instead face a CR 3 opponent. Chances are that, on average, this encounter will be as expensive to the 3rd-level party as the CR 3 trap. I don't expect a CR 3 opponent to take out a 3rd-level character against a 4-man party, much less the 3rd-level party altogether. Now, I believe this is why you're inclined to believe the trap's purpose is to merely damage the party. You need to take into account the average cost of a trap or monster of its CR. If you wanted to take out a 2nd-level party in one encounter, odds are you'd use a CR 5 or CR 6 opponent. Similarly, if you wanted a trap that could take out a 2nd-level party, you'd go for a CR 5 or CR 6 trap. A barred metal door has a better chance of denying access to an area than a damaging trap does, but the standard rules do not award XP for overcoming a barred metal door. This is because the experience point system rewards for overcoming challenges with a certain risk factor. This risk can come in many forms (such as social risks for encounters that involve the use of diplomacy, for example), but it must be present. The barred metal door is no more a challenge than making a high-DC long jump or simply hitting a high AC with your bow and arrow. Encounters must involve some degree of risk, as they are otherwise no more challenging than a simple check. I do not see a trap as resembling an encounter with a guardian monster. A guardian monster can move, often speak, make choices, retreat, summon aid, etc. I see a trap as resembling a preset ambush. Both are static surprise attacks designed to deter, injure, or kill a vulnerable party. Since PCs are not granted XP for surviving an ambush without taking down their ambushers (overcoming the encounter) I do not see it as reasonable to award them XP for being surprised by and taking damage from a trap. Again, I feel you're not dissociating the means from the ends. It doesn't matter whether the guardian monster can move, speak, make choices, and so on. What it can do is merely part of the challenge. Furthermore, you're not looking into what it means to take out an ambusher. Why is an ambusher's challenge overcome? Because it's dead? Because it ran away? Maybe, at face value. The real reason: its ambush failed to do what it was meant to do. In any case, you need to dissociate the means from the ends, as you otherwise limit the players in how they can overcome any given challenge (which will tend to limit creativity in problem resolution as well).
Frugal 10-09-07, 09:18 AM	Experience points are an inherently meta-game concept and from a meta-game perspective, the purpose of most traps is not to deny the PCs access to an area. This is because most traps are incapable of doing that to a CR appropriate party. In most cases a CR appropriate trap's (meta-game) purpose is exactly what it is capable of doing: damaging the party. I think I see the mistake that you're making, you're applying the metagame concept of CR to imply the intent of the trap. The intent of the trap is purely an in-game concept, the same as the monsters' intents are in-game concepts. A tomb-builder doesn't say, "I want this trap to challenge 3rd party adventurers", a tomb-builder says, "I want to keep people out of the tomb", and so on. The CR system exists for the DM to evaluate that level of challenge and what threat that it poses to the party (and helps you from unintentionally wiping out the party). I agree that XP are a metagame concept, but I see it more as that you provide a metagame reward for in-game accomplishments. The first step of determining if a reward should be given is looking at the in-game situation and if they overcame the challenge (based on the in-game intent). Saying that a CR appropriate trap can't stop a party doesn't change the in-game intent, it just means that the players were capable of overcoming it. The same would be true for if a BBEG sends assassins against the party, the fact that it's a CR appropriate encounter doesn't change the fact that the intent was to kill the party.
Finarin Panjoro 10-09-07, 12:29 PM	Nom and Jhulae, I see where you are coming from but I disagree that this is unfair or a penalty. You cannot penalize someone by not giving them an award. Penalizing someone is taking something away from them, which I have not done since in my campaigns they were not entitled to those experience points to begin with. The problem with ruling otherwise is that it is unfair. Consider 3 parties: * party A detects and disarms the trap, and continues onward. * party B detects the trap but cannot disarm it, so they trigger it and continue onward. * party C fails to detect the trap and triggers it, then continues onward. Parties B and C take more damage from the trap than party A, but all 3 parties end up in a situation where the trap is no longer impeding their progress. To give less XP to B or C than to A is to double-penalise - not only have they used more resources, thus reducing their ability to overcome future encounters, but you're docking them XP as well. "Yes, it was dangerous and risky, and yes you survived, but I'm going to withhold XP as if you had not passed the encounter." The way I use traps Party B will almost always gain XP for encountering it. All they have to do is attempt to mitigate the traps effects in some way to be awarded XP for it (in this case they don't have to succeed at mitigating the effects if what they try doesn't work). That may mean putting a tower shield over the emittance point of a burning hands trap or a plank of wood over a pit trap or just watching a pendulum blade activate and gaining the bonus to AC and Reflex provided by the DMG. Party C may still be awarded XP for encountering the trap if they've proactively taken steps to be ready for surprises (separate the group so area effects don't get all of them, have feather fall prepped, boost the rogue's dexterity with cat's grace or AC with barksin, etc). I even stated several posts ago that a successful Saving Throw that avoids damage/effect usually awards XP for the trap. Only party D who ignores the warning signs (which I always provide) and blindly walks into a trap and then suffers its effects will not recieve XP for encountering it. But in practice, this never happens. I can't remember ever denying XP for a trap because I can't remember a time that my PCs have actually failed to mitigate its effects to some degree. I only place traps in places where they make sense to be placed and usually there is a clue to tell them that searching here might be a good idea. I never have a completely randomly placed trap just blast the party because doing so is unfair on my part and creates an expectation of arbitrary hazards which would require the PCs to always be on the look out for traps and would grind the game to a halt. I believe that an undiscovered trap is a boring trap. Some traps might be part of a monster encounter (with the monster using the trap to its advantage) and the PCs always recieve XP for defeating the monster and the trap in those circumstances because that trap is effectively an ally for the monster. I don't see this as any more unfair than having the PCs be ambushed by archers on a cliff that they cannot reach. If the archers retreat for reasons other than being run off by the PCs (such as being summoned away for another purpose, whatever) then by RAW the PCs do not recieve XP for any of the archers that got away, no matter how much damage or how little the archers did to them. Marcus, I'm not sure what you mean about the inconsistency. IMO my method is more consistent with how XP is awarded than the RAW on traps. I would not do what you apparently think I'm advocating, which is to award less XP for poor performance. I would not do that in a monster encounter or a trap encounter. If the PCs tried to mitigate the effects of a trap, but their method failed, they would most likely still recieve XP for attempting to do so. What everyone seems to be missing is that I only require that the PCs interact with the trap in some way other than the combination of A) Being surprised by it and B) suffering its full effects. So let me clarify: A) Find Trap and make any attempt to mitigate its effects (successful or not): full XP awarded. B) Don't Find Trap, but proactively take steps to mitigate possible trap effects (succesfully or not): full XP awarded. C) Don't Find Trap, but escape traps effects through ability or saving throw (Reflex with evasion included): full XP awarded. D) Don't Find Trap, suffer full effects of trap (Reflex for half does not constitute avoidance): No XP awarded. Marcus, so are you saying that in the case of the ambush if the archers fail to stop the party from progressing beyond the ambush point that you would award XP for all of the archers? I have no problem with that if that constitutes overcoming the encounter. But in the case of such an ambush I would actually have to make sure they had a decent chance of succeeding at denying them passage to designate that as a victory condition (maybe they can cast web to block passage or block it with a landslide etc) and then if the player's survive and continue on without inflicting any casualties they will still have overcome that challenge. But if the encounter is less structured than that, say some orcs on a cliff that just ambush because they're cruel, but retreat as soon as they realize that the PCs can shoot back (without offering a full challenge), then XP would only be awarded for the orcs that did not get away (which is consistent with the RAW). If the orcs made a serious attack and only retreated after taking casualties (that is they retreated out of fear of complete defeat by the PCs) then the PCs would recieve XP for all of them. I have never had a problem with limiting player's creative options because I allow almost anything they come up with and I do award XP for bypassing encounters in other ways (stealth, diplomacy, etc). In fact I've found that many creative solutions to traps come out of this method and that my parties don't feel that they must have a rogue to be able to handle them. In fact no one has played a rogue in my last two campaigns and they still enjoy trap encounters. Frugal, I don't think I'm making the mistake that you're assuming I'm making. Firstly I don't award XP for defeating a trap's in-game purpose, I award XP for overcoming the challenge it poses to the party. I don't care if the trap's designer intends that burning hands trap to keep people from passing further into the dungeon or if he's immune to fire and he uses it to dry off after emerging from the underwater entrance. I award XP based on overcoming the challenge it represents to the party and in most (not all) cases overcoming that challenge means reducing/negating the damage it is capable of inflicting on the party. So you have to understand that I can't see this as being unfair since in practice my PCs always get XP for traps and they overcome them in more creative ways than simply using Disable Device. Now if a different DM were to place traps utterly randomly with no sign that a trap might be present (thus requiring his PCs to have a rogue search every square of every room and punishing them whenever they did not), then I can see how this might seem like an unfair system. But I would also argue that in this case there are bigger problems for that game than what they're gaining or not gaining XP for.
Frugal 10-09-07, 03:42 PM	Frugal, I don't think I'm making the mistake that you're assuming I'm making. Firstly I don't award XP for defeating a trap's in-game purpose, I award XP for overcoming the challenge it poses to the party. I don't care if the trap's designer intends that burning hands trap to keep people from passing further into the dungeon or if he's immune to fire and he uses it to dry off after emerging from the underwater entrance. I award XP based on overcoming the challenge it represents to the party and in most (not all) cases overcoming that challenge means reducing/negating the damage it is capable of inflicting on the party Yes and no, I agree that the challenge has to be considered as well since obviously some issues will come up that present unintended challenges to the party (such as the example of drying off with the burning hands trap). But what I mean is that the CR system already assumes this, the idea is that CR appropriate challenges (be they monster, social or trap) are all designed to present a challenge that should drain the party's resources but shouldn't present a deadly encounter, it's designed to be something they can overcome without too much difficulty. So saying that a CR appropriate trap will only damage the party is true, but that's because the system is designed that way, suggesting that changes the intent of the trap though and saying that because it "only" damaged the party and thus, was not overcome, is not valid though. For traps you have to look at either the intent (such as to stop the party) or if it presented a challenge, then assess the difficulty of the challenge (CR) and award XP.
Marcus Majarra 10-09-07, 04:10 PM	Marcus, I'm not sure what you mean about the inconsistency. IMO my method is more consistent with how XP is awarded than the RAW on traps. I would not do what you apparently think I'm advocating, which is to award less XP for poor performance. I would not do that in a monster encounter or a trap encounter. If the PCs tried to mitigate the effects of a trap, but their method failed, they would most likely still recieve XP for attempting to do so. Let me rephrase this in another way. Going by your personal guidelines, you would award no experience for simply blundering through a trap without any attempt to mitigate its effects. This is based upon the idea that a trap's purpose is to deal damage. Quite frankly, I could easily argue that a monster's purpose is to deal damage. There is a loss of consistency in the way you award experience because: 1) With traps, you consider how the party dealt with the trap when awarding experience. Getting through the trap is not as important as how you do it. Thus, if the trap ends up dealing high damage to the PCs, but they pull through, no experience. 2) With monsters, you do not consider how the party dealt with the monster when awarding experience. Getting through the monsters becomes the point. Thus, if the monster ends up dealing high damage to the PCs, but they pull through, you award experience. Marcus, so are you saying that in the case of the ambush if the archers fail to stop the party from progressing beyond the ambush point that you would award XP for all of the archers? That depends on the nature of the encounter/challenge. If the archers are there as guardians, i.e. to prevent the PCs from moving through, then yes full experience should be awarded for parties that move through, regardless of whether the archers were slain. But in the case of such an ambush I would actually have to make sure they had a decent chance of succeeding at denying them passage to designate that as a victory condition (maybe they can cast web to block passage or block it with a landslide etc) and then if the player's survive and continue on without inflicting any casualties they will still have overcome that challenge. You're making the same mistake here: you're confusing ends with means. The archers' purpose is to stop the PCs. How well they can achieve this end will be a function of their CR (or EL). Whether they're good at this or not is irrelevant in terms of experience awards. This will only be relevant when you want to gauge the difficulty of the encounter. Take, for example, a 1st-level party pitted against a single Monster Manual goblin. What's the purpose of the goblin? I would say its goal was to kill/capture/disable the party. Going by your standards, however, since it's incapable of doing so, you would argue that killing can't possibly be its goal; it can only settle for damaging the party. However, this would mean that once the goblin damages the party, it achieved its goal and the PCs failed, resulting in no experience awarded. I doubt you would rule this way if the party slew the goblin after taking damage. As you can see, how well you can do something has nothing to do with what you want to do. How a challenge is overcome depends on what the point of the challenge was; whether the challenge can achieve its ends effectively or not depends on its CR and the party level. But if the encounter is less structured than that, say some orcs on a cliff that just ambush because they're cruel, but retreat as soon as they realize that the PCs can shoot back (without offering a full challenge), then XP would only be awarded for the orcs that did not get away (which is consistent with the RAW). If the orcs made a serious attack and only retreated after taking casualties (that is they retreated out of fear of complete defeat by the PCs) then the PCs would recieve XP for all of them. This depends on the nature of the encounter and its challenges. You need to figure out the orcs' goals to determine how their challenge is overcome. With only the information you provided, their goal is not clear. What's interesting to point out, however, is that when a challenge is set to be less difficult than normal (as would be the case with any destroyer challenge set to escape prematurely), it should award less experience. Frugal, I don't think I'm making the mistake that you're assuming I'm making. Firstly I don't award XP for defeating a trap's in-game purpose, I award XP for overcoming the challenge it poses to the party. I don't care if the trap's designer intends that burning hands trap to keep people from passing further into the dungeon or if he's immune to fire and he uses it to dry off after emerging from the underwater entrance. I award XP based on overcoming the challenge it represents to the party and in most (not all) cases overcoming that challenge means reducing/negating the damage it is capable of inflicting on the party. Okay, look at it this way: How much is a CR 1 challenge worth to a 1st-level party? How much is a CR 4 worth? Now, imagine that both CRs represent pit traps. Which one has more potential to take out party members? Are they acting any differently from one another? Of course not; they're both pit traps. They can occupy the exact same space and they operate identically against PCs (if not to the same extent). Thus, it's quite ascertainable that both have the same goal. The traps don't know what kinds of PCs will come along. The trap is just there, challenging PCs to get through and the challenge is overcome when the PCs get through, no matter how they do this (even if it is blundering through). How much experience will be awarded doesn't depend on the trap's goal; it depends on the trap's CR. Thus, the CR 4 trap will reward you more than the CR 1 trap. This is consistent with the notion of blundering through a trap. It's far more challenging to blunder through a CR 4 trap than a CR 1 trap.
Finarin Panjoro 10-09-07, 04:26 PM	Frugal, the reason I have trouble accepting that logic is because in all other situations there is the potential for players to lose or fail to overcome the encounter. If it is a social encounter they may fail to achieve the outcome they desire and thus not be awarded XP for it. If it is a stealth encounter they may fail to succeed in sneaking by and thus not recieve XP for it (the encounter could then change to combat and they might be awarded separate XP for the combat encounter). If it is a monster encounter the PCs may be defeated (they may survive as captives, be rescued at the last minute, or be resurrected) and fail to gain XP for the encounter. But by the rules as written traps are free XP. There is no way other than to NOT encounter the trap to fail to gain XP. So it is effectively impossible to lose an encounter with a trap with one exception; if it kills you and you are resurrected I suspect the RAW would not support you gaining XP from it. Why would we reward players for losing a trap encounter when we don't reward them for losing any others? This is the inconsistency that I can't stand, and have thus removed from my games. So all I have done is define the missing loss conditions for a trap encounter.
Finarin Panjoro 10-09-07, 04:47 PM	Marcus, I don't believe I'm guilty of the inconsitency that you are pointing too. You are also incorrectly interpreting my ruling to be based on results. I do not reward them for handling a trap well, I reward them for 'attempting' to handle it. They may still take full damage from it (maybe by misunderstanding the threat or failing a necessary skill check) but in this case they have made an active decision to 'engage' the challenge the trap represents. I see awarding XP for losing an encounter with a trap (by blundering into it) as inconsistent with the other XP award rules which require victory. IMO a trap can achieve no higher victory than having a PC blunder into it. All other non-XP awarding outcomes amount to not encountering the trap at all (teleporting over it without finding it, turning back without passing it). By the RAW if the trap succeeds at its greatest level, by killing the PC, he will gain no XP for it. However most CR appropriate traps are incapable of achieving this result. They are capable of achieving surprise and delivering their effect. So I've adjusted the definition of victory for a trap. Regarding your CR 1 pit versus the CR 4 pit against a level 1 party. I'm just not sure how this is relevant to my ruling. One is harder to survive and thus worth greater XP if you do. But, under my rules, niether will award XP to you if you simply fall in and hit the bottom. One of them does have a better chance of killing you in this event however. Both will award XP to you if you make a Reflex Save and avoid falling. Both will award XP to you if you find them and jump beyond them (or walk around them if possible). Both will award XP to you if you have prepared feather fall for the day. One gives you greater XP than the other because the cost of failure is higher (miss your jump check). Where's the inconsistency here?
Frugal 10-09-07, 05:10 PM	Frugal, the reason I have trouble accepting that logic is because in all other situations there is the potential for players to lose or fail to overcome the encounter. If it is a social encounter they may fail to achieve the outcome they desire and thus not be awarded XP for it. If it is a stealth encounter they may fail to succeed in sneaking by and thus not recieve XP for it (the encounter could then change to combat and they might be awarded separate XP for the combat encounter). If it is a monster encounter the PCs may be defeated (they may survive as captives, be rescued at the last minute, or be resurrected) and fail to gain XP for the encounter. But by the rules as written traps are free XP. There is no way other than to NOT encounter the trap to fail to gain XP. So it is effectively impossible to lose an encounter with a trap with one exception; if it kills you and you are resurrected I suspect the RAW would not support you gaining XP from it. Why would we reward players for losing a trap encounter when we don't reward them for losing any others? This is the inconsistency that I can't stand, and have thus removed from my games. So all I have done is define the missing loss conditions for a trap encounter. And see, I see it that the trap succeeds if it turns the party back or otherwise denies them from their goal (killing them, making the goal inaccessible to them, etc). If the trap is incapable of doing that then I'd say that's an argument that the trap's CR wasn't correctly calculated, not that it's a flaw in the XP system. The problem with traps is they're usually 1 shot deals, it's very difficult to balance that in such a way that it poses a significant enough threat to the party without also being a significant chance of killing them outright. A monster is much easier to balance because its effectiveness is spread over several rounds, so it can be tough to defeat (in any number of ways) and dish out damage, or otherwise drain resources from the party, over several rounds. But most traps in D&D are of the type of make a save to avoid (or take half damage) or else take a little damage, then move on. Again, I see that as a flaw with the way traps are done in D&D rather than a flaw with the XP concept.
Marcus Majarra 10-09-07, 05:56 PM	IMO a trap can achieve no higher victory than having a PC blunder into it. Actually, there is a higher victory: preventing the PC from moving through. This is why blundering into a trap encounter is not losing the encounter any more than blundering into an ambush. By the RAW if the trap succeeds at its greatest level, by killing the PC, he will gain no XP for it. However most CR appropriate traps are incapable of achieving this result. The same can be said for every CR appropriate monster. Still, the greatest level of success the trap can have is blocking access. This is made evident by taking all the ways you can imagine of defeating a trap and looking at the single common end result: the PCs make it through. The trap might be encountered in a multitude of ways, but the end result remains the same for victorious PCs: they made it through. Regarding your CR 1 pit versus the CR 4 pit against a level 1 party. I'm just not sure how this is relevant to my ruling. One is harder to survive and thus worth greater XP if you do. But, under my rules, niether will award XP to you if you simply fall in and hit the bottom. One of them does have a better chance of killing you in this event however. Both will award XP to you if you make a Reflex Save and avoid falling. Both will award XP to you if you find them and jump beyond them (or walk around them if possible). Both will award XP to you if you have prepared feather fall for the day. One gives you greater XP than the other because the cost of failure is higher (miss your jump check). Where's the inconsistency here? The inconsistency is that you assign the trap its purpose based on what it can do. As such, the same 1st-level party would overcome the CR 1 trap by mitigating its effects (since it's unlikely it will kill anyone), whereas the CR 4 trap would be overcome by mere survival (since it's quite capable of killing almost every 1st-level PC). The truth is, both traps are mechanically identical; it's just that one is more effective. This difference manifests itself in differing CRs (which, in turn, award different experience); not in different goals.
Finarin Panjoro 10-11-07, 11:19 AM	Frugal, I agree with you that this is a flaw with the way traps are done in the current version of D&D. This is my answer to that problem and it's not perfect, but it's better than overhauling the whole system (which I don't have the energy to do). My hope is traps will be less of a land-mine/one-shot affair in 4th edition and will have more of a puzzle/challenge quality to them. Marcus, I just don't think that preventing the PCs from moving through is a reasonable measure of victory for a CR appropriate trap, nor is it always the case. The traps purpose may be to wear down the party so that their resources are depleted when they meet the boss at the center of this lair/tomb/etc (such as a targeted dispel magic trap, a bane trap, or a bestow curse trap). So what do you do if the trap's purpose is to wear down the party, not to deny access? If it's purpose is to wear down the party then a trap that successfully damages the party has succeeded to the utmost of its ability. However then we're back to dealing with the intent of the designer as a measure of the challenge which I don't believe is a good measure. The purpose of the trap is beside the point, I don't care what the intended purpose of the trap is (and I apologize for this because I did use the word 'purpose' in my earlier posts when I should have said challenge). I care about what sort of challenge it represents. If the challenge it represents is that it can surprise and damage the party, and it does so to maximum effect, then in my opinion the party has not overcome that challenge. Because traps are one-shot affairs I don't see the victory conditions as directly comparable to a CR appropriate monster. Monsters have too many more options than a trap does. Monsters can adapt to the challenge the PC faces (select vulnerable targets, retreat, summon aid, use cover, etc) traps can't. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do things this way, it's just how I do it. But so far no one has convinced me that there is a problem with how I'm doing it.
Marcus Majarra 10-12-07, 01:40 AM	If the challenge it represents is that it can surprise and damage the party, and it does so to maximum effect, then in my opinion the party has not overcome that challenge. Actually, you're assuming there's a numerical maximum effect you can measure. As it is: traps can be reset. Their maximum effect is virtually unlimited. Regardless, this lacks of coherence. A trap's effectiveness should not be measured by the effect it actually had on the PCs. This effect is already factored in the trap's CR and its variable nature is already accounted for. If you run the same trap encounter multiple times, using all sorts of methods to bypassing (including just taking whatever damage it can deal), expended party resources will tend towards the norm for its CR vs party level.
Finarin Panjoro 10-12-07, 09:51 AM	Actually, you're assuming there's a numerical maximum effect you can measure. As it is: traps can be reset. Their maximum effect is virtually unlimited. I'm not sure why you think I'm assuming that. I've never stated that I was. The fact is that PCs only encounter most traps once. Once they know about it, they will find a way to be ready for it the second time (barring unusual circumstances like being bullrushed into it, etc). A trap's effectiveness should not be measured by the effect it actually had on the PCs. I agree. I'm not advocating doing this and I never have. By maximum effect I mean that the two conditions that I stated in my earlier posts are met. That is A) activating with surprise and B) delivering its unmitigated efffects. That's it. I don't care if the 10d6 fireball trap delivers 10 pts of damage or 60 points of damage. That's irrelevant. I don't care if the scythe trap misses and does nothing. That's irrelevant as well. What I care about is that the party made an active attempt to engage the challenge offered by the trap. I repeat, whether they are successful or not has no bearing on whether they recieve XP. It is the attempt that matters. Let me illustrate some more cases: 1) Party of adventurers ignores signs of a trap ahead (scorched bones and char marks on the floor walls and ceiling), without searching they proceed ahead and trigger a fireball trap which deals low damage. All of them make their saves. The rogue with evasion takes no damage. They pass the area and continue on. No XP is awarded to the party for handling this trap. 2) Party of adventurers ignores signs of a trap ahead (scorched bones and char marks on the floor walls and ceiling), without searching they proceed ahead and trigger a fireball trap which deals heavy damage. All of them fail their saves. They take severe damage and a PC is killed outright. The rest pass the area and continue on. No XP is awarded to the party for handling this trap. 3) Party sees signs of fire related area trap. They cast resist fire on the rogue and send him 30 feet ahead where he searches for, but fails to find the trap. The trap activates, the rogue fails his save, but is protected partially by the resist fire spell. The rest of the party avoids its effects by being distanced from the rogue. Full XP is awarded to this party regardless of how they proceed from this point (since the rest of the party must still pass the trap). 4) Party sees signs of fire related area trap. They have no rogue and no fire resisting spells or items. They use summon monster 1 to send a creature ahead and it triggers the trap revealing its location. The trap resets. The party covers themselves with water soaked cloaks and runs through the area. The DM awards them a +4 bonus to their Reflex Saves. None of them make their saves and they take severe damage. Full XP is awarded to this party. 5) Party sees signs of fire related area trap. They send their rogue 20 feet ahead to search. He fails to find it. He triggers it engulfing him and the party. They take damage. Full XP is awarded to this party. 6) Party sees signs of fire related area trap. The send the rogue ahead. He searchs, finds, and disarms the trap, the party passes without triggering the trap at all. Full XP is awarded to this party. Do you see how the effectiveness of the trap is irrelevant? What matters is that the PCs attempted to overcome the challenge offered by the trap and did not ignore the signs that a trap was ahead. If the party reacts to the signs or clues that a trap is ahead chances are they are going to get experience for it. They have to ignore the evidence given to them (which I repeat, I always provide because an unfound trap is boring) and proceed onward without taking precautions for me to not award XP. The signs I provide are also usually non-skill check dependent. That means no skill check is required to notice them (and a non-rogue is just as likely as a rogue to figure it out). You walk into the area and the description includes clues that should tell you that you need to search or prepare in some way. Maybe this is the aforementioned scorched bones and char marks, or blood stains on a weird place on the wall, or a partially scrawled warning of a previous victim, or legends the players have already heard about the area, or documents that identify the area as possessing traps, whatever.
Frugal 10-12-07, 10:32 AM	Finarin: I'm glad you took the time to provide some concrete examples. I still disagree with your approach because it looks at the trap without any other context. I still prefer to look at things in terms of the greater, in-game, context. The in-game context is that the goal of the trap is to deter, turn back and/or kill intruders and party is likely there with some greater goal in mind than getting past a trap. What this does is forces you to look at the in-game goals of the party, evaluate if they were successful and then look at what challenges they faced along the way. The reason I go for this approach is I find that it focuses me more on what it is the party is trying to accomplish. It encourages me to plan encounters in that context. It gets me away from the mindset of just throwing a bunch of random monsters at the party for the sake of giving them some combat encounters. It also encourages me to think of story awards and non-combat encounters and how they apply to the XP situation as well. I'm not saying your approach is "wrong", it's just that I find it's a little too focused on the individual encounters rather than the overall goal.
Marcus Majarra 10-12-07, 11:29 AM	I'm not saying your approach is "wrong", it's just that I find it's a little too focused on the individual encounters rather than the overall goal. I think he advocates that experience should be awarded on active participation of the PCs in a trap encounter, moreso than the trap's purpose. It makes sense in the way that one feels that experience should only be awarded when the PCs actively participate, but as Finarin said earlier, this is no the way the RAW go.
Frugal 10-12-07, 12:49 PM	I think he advocates that experience should be awarded on active participation of the PCs in a trap encounter, moreso than the trap's purpose. It makes sense in the way that one feels that experience should only be awarded when the PCs actively participate, but as Finarin said earlier, this is no the way the RAW go. Yes, I understand his viewpoint, but my point is that the active participation mindset focuses way too much on the individual encounter, but does justify not giving XP. Whereas focusing on the goals of the party looks more at the "big picture" and does justify XP for the trap even if they did nothing to mitigate it.
Finarin Panjoro 10-12-07, 01:14 PM	I think he advocates that experience should be awarded on active participation of the PCs in a trap encounter, moreso than the trap's purpose. You've got it exactly. Active participation is the name of the game with me. Frugal, I see where you're coming from, but many encounters don't relate to a party's over all goal (random encounters with mindless vermin in dangerous areas, side quests, etc). I don't feel that they should be denied XP for overcoming pointless challenges. A pointless challenge may still kill you, teach you something, or lead you to something new that was better or more important than your original goal. I definitely do advocate a micro-view of encounters in which each encounter is evaluated independently of the whole scenario (unless the scenario directly influences the difficulty of that encounter). I prefer this approach because it can lead to partial rewards (defeating several early challenges before failing at a larger one) which can lead to the characters improving enough to attempt the larger challenge a second time (with better resources available). I feel each encounter must be evaluated for what type of challenge it represents. In this way multiple avenues of approach become available and rewards are easy to assign as it should be fairly clear when any individual challenge has been overcome. Thank you both for your intelligent and challenging posts. It is always rewarding to defend something you believe in against well intentioned and honest criticism.
Frugal 10-12-07, 01:58 PM	Frugal, I see where you're coming from, but many encounters don't relate to a party's over all goal (random encounters with mindless vermin in dangerous areas, side quests, etc). I don't feel that they should be denied XP for overcoming pointless challenges. A pointless challenge may still kill you, teach you something, or lead you to something new that was better or more important than your original goal. I definitely do advocate a micro-view of encounters in which each encounter is evaluated independently of the whole scenario (unless the scenario directly influences the difficulty of that encounter). I prefer this approach because it can lead to partial rewards (defeating several early challenges before failing at a larger one) which can lead to the characters improving enough to attempt the larger challenge a second time (with better resources available). I feel each encounter must be evaluated for what type of challenge it represents. In this way multiple avenues of approach become available and rewards are easy to assign as it should be fairly clear when any individual challenge has been overcome. I think random encounter is a misnomer, the encounter might be random but it still relates to the party's goals. If the party has to get from point A to point B and there are random encounters along the way (due to it being a dangerous area) then those are still challenges that need to be overcome in order to achieve that goal. And side quests are definitely valid, it's still the party focusing on a goal, just not the overall campaign goal, a smaller side goal. As for partial rewards. Obviously it's not completely black or white. I guess for me it's about actively attempting to achieve a goal that gets them XP. What I mean by that is that I probably wouldn't let the party just randomly wander around looking for stuff to fight in order to gain XP and level. But if they're working toward a goal then they get XP. I think a lot comes down to breaking up the larger goal into smaller chunks. But yes, sometimes you do have to break it down by encounters and sometimes you have to break it down by the story goals and sticking to either extreme too much will get you in trouble. Thank you both for your intelligent and challenging posts. It is always rewarding to defend something you believe in against well intentioned and honest criticism. Agreed, I think we've all managed to keep this to an intelligent and respectful level of discourse rather than let it sink into the all too common level of flame war and immaturity that you usually see on forums.
Marcus Majarra 10-13-07, 12:43 AM	I definitely do advocate a micro-view of encounters in which each encounter is evaluated independently of the whole scenario This is the way RAW go. The award of experience is based on the encounter and its challenges; not the adventure.
Frugal 10-13-07, 02:42 PM	This is the way RAW go. The award of experience is based on the encounter and its challenges; not the adventure. I guess I should clarify my standpoint, I award based on the encounter in the context of the greater adventure. I think this helps focus you better on when XP should be given and help clear up any "grey areas" such as fleeing monsters or traps.