Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Taren 12-20-07, 04:55 PM	we all know that you don't need to kill the enemy to defeat him. but is simply removing him from the encounter enough? if I use "nybor's joyful Journey" on the one and only bad guy we face he's 100 miles away and isn't getting back any time soon... he's not really been defeated just kinda postponed. does it count as defeat in the eyes of the DMG XP awards?
CryoSilver 12-20-07, 05:02 PM	Ask yourself this: have the PCs defeated him in such a fashion that he can no longer affect them? If so, then yes, they should get XP, otherwise, when they kill an enemy, they shouldn't get XP because he can be raised.
mvincent 12-20-07, 05:23 PM	does it count as defeat in the eyes of the DMG XP awards?Yup... unless the party's 'goal' in the encounter required his death or a piece of his gear or somesuch. Also, if the party later encountered that same opponent in the same session, I would not give them XP for him again.
groveborn 12-21-07, 01:24 AM	It's okay to reward the PCs for overcoming the challenge without killing it. That being said, one must ask if it were worth the full value, as it can happen again. Enemies CAN retreat to fight another day, how is sending the baddie away any better than that? I say treat the encounter as 2 levels lower for a better approximation of XP value.
ArcTan 12-21-07, 01:46 AM	Encounters should be thought of as goals to complete, not people to defeat. Your job is to *do your job*. If your job was done, you get the XP. Giving people more XP for killing monsters when it isn't actually necessary to do the job turns adventurers into totally unrealistically bloodthirsty characters for no good reason. In real life, very few fights end in deaths, and even most battles end with far fewer than 100% casualties on either side. The idea that you have to *kill* your enemies is actually pretty damaging to storytelling and realism in D&D.
ArcTan 12-21-07, 01:47 AM	It's okay to reward the PCs for overcoming the challenge without killing it. That being said, one must ask if it were worth the full value, as it can happen again. Enemies CAN retreat to fight another day, how is sending the baddie away any better than that? Forcing the enemy to retreat or run away *is* "defeating" the encounter, according to the DMG. I say treat the encounter as 2 levels lower for a better approximation of XP value. That's a pretty heinous penalty, and will lead to lots of sessions where bad guys either totally unrealistically throw themselves at PCs to be killed even while mortally wounded, or else PCs spend hours and hours chasing down wounded bad guys for no good reason.
Estand 12-21-07, 09:51 AM	If the baddie cannot rejoin the encounter... then I would consider him defeated. With the caveat above, the players did not need something from said baddie (its life or possesions). Good news for the DM is that you now have a recurring baddie!! :D Oh and players get less loot heheheheh... all the risk and little reward. :P Yes you can get full XP for the same recurring baddie... just remember that said baddie will also gain XP. Such baddies add a lot of flavor to a campaign.
groveborn 12-21-07, 10:51 AM	Strictly speaking, my suggestion was just a suggestion, not RAW. I just don't feel good about rewarding a PC for not finishing the job. If that baddie can come back and slaughter more people, then the job isn't done. You don't have to kill him. You can subdue, imprison (both physically and magically) strip him of his threat... so on. You can even attempt to convince him not to be bad anymore. Police are rarely rewarded for beating a serial killer just to let him get away.
ArcTan 12-21-07, 05:05 PM	It depends on the scenario. In a police-like "hunting down a serial killer" scenario, yes, letting him get away is bad. Not so much in a military-like "defending the outpost" or "raiding the village" scenario. The question is always what *goal* the PCs are trying to accomplish -- in some cases the permanent elimination of an enemy *is* the goal, in other cases the enemy is just an obstacle on a way to a goal.
groveborn 12-21-07, 05:26 PM	And I'll agree totally with that. I just think that any time the baddie, who would normally be a reoccurring theme, needs to be taken care of permanently. Whether that's killing, or some other way, it doesn't matter. Random encounters should be less stringent. DM should always determine whether the encounter was defeated based on the set of circumstances.
mvincent 12-21-07, 05:48 PM	If that baddie can come back and slaughter more people, then the job isn't done.To be fair... the BBEG often should be able to come back in a future session as a recurring villain without this meaning an XP penalty for the PC's.
Novacat 12-21-07, 06:14 PM	1. As stated, overcoming an encounter with hostile creatures is achieved by killing said creatures, forcing them to abandon the fight, or otherwise removing them as a threat. a. Examples for the first instance need not be given, since rampant genocide on entire tribes of kobolds and goblins is commonplace in D&D. b. An example of the second instance is where the PCs are battling sentient creatures, and those creatures recognize that they are outmatched, and choose to either withdraw from combat, or surrender. In either event, they have been defeated. c. A prime example of the last instance is when fighting an outsider, and the party's caster uses Banishment or Dismissal to remove the outsider. The creature is not dead, and did not wish to leave the battle, but has been removed as a threat nonetheless. 2. Experience should be awarded based on challenge and achievements, not CR. If the fight was too easy, the party learns little from the struggle, no matter how powerful the enemy was "supposed to be." a. Once the party gains access to Save-or-Die spells, they have the potential to end an encounter before it begins. One lucky (or unlucky) roll can kill a big baddy. If this happens, they party hasn't really faced the enemy, and should not receive experience as if they had. b. It is entirely possible that certain, special circumstances render an otherwise deadly encounter into a harmless one. Imagine a vampire, a succubus, 6 rust monsters, and an umberhulk, all against a single paladin. You have elements of confusion, loss of equipment, and rampant level drain. This SHOULD be an almost impossible encounter. But what if the paladin is a Paladin of Freedom, wearing a Gauntlet of Rust and an Amulet of Death Ward. In this instance (which really happened to my party), the single level 13 paladin can take on a CR 13 encounter with very little trouble. c. The CR system is broken. The CR system is broken. Do not follow the CR system for experience awards. The cake is a lie.
mvincent 12-21-07, 06:37 PM	One lucky (or unlucky) roll can kill a big baddy. If this happens, they party hasn't really faced the enemy, and should not receive experience as if they had.That notion does not appear to be endorsed by the normal rules. Did you have any supporting rules? c. The CR system is broken. The CR system is broken. Do not follow the CR system for experience awards.Ah, nevermind. This line effectively serves to qualify for your above feedback.
The_Shaman 12-21-07, 07:05 PM	we all know that you don't need to kill the enemy to defeat him. but is simply removing him from the encounter enough? if I use "nybor's joyful Journey" on the one and only bad guy we face he's 100 miles away and isn't getting back any time soon... he's not really been defeated just kinda postponed. does it count as defeat in the eyes of the DMG XP awards? He's been defeated. He sought to oppose the PCs from accomplishing a certain goal, and is no longer able to do so immediately. The PCs have foiled him and become more proficient at their skills by doing so - thus the XP is well earned.
Bopple 12-21-07, 07:31 PM	If your goal is to take his horde, to prevent him from finishing his dead-lined work or to destroy his laboratory, then you have certainly defeated him. But if your goal is to effectively nullify him(killing, arresting or ect), 100 miles is not good enough, I'd say. Seriously, it's only a few days away, even on foot. If he used a horse, he would be at your doorstep, in 2 days. Perhaps 1,000 miles may be considered as defeating. But if he can cast Teleport, it's no better than 100 miles.
groveborn 12-21-07, 10:50 PM	Okay, how about this. You force the bad guy to teleport (unwillingly) 1000 miles away. 10 minutes later, he returns. The encounter was over for 10 minutes, but here he is again. When is the xp awarded? Both times, or the one time he's actually defeated? How about if in the same circumstances he's gone for 6 hours? Is this a new encounter, or the same one? Let's take it to one full day. Is this the same encounter, or a different encounter? How about after 1 year? This one I'd favor granting Exp because the immediate threat was removed. The others I'd treat as a single encounter. My definition of defeated is when the immediate threat or challenge has been removed. If there's time to regroup, recharge, and rethink a plan, then it's likely not the same encounter. But even after 1 day, you can still be down hit points, you haven't recovered your potions, and your other supplies may still be low. A challenge doesn't have to be 10 rounds long, it can be a week long, easily. This becomes a story award at this point, rather than a full on CR.
CryoSilver 12-22-07, 02:42 AM	XP is calculated at theend of the session, generally. If the enemy reappears after ten minutes, before the PCs have rested or recovered, and before they have the done the thing that the enemy was attempting to stop them from doing, then they get XP once, for one encounter. If he shows up an hour later, after the PCs have done what he was trying to stop them from doing, they get should XP twice.
Toki_Wartooth 12-22-07, 11:20 AM	Okay, how about this. You force the bad guy to teleport (unwillingly) 1000 miles away. 10 minutes later, he returns. The encounter was over for 10 minutes, but here he is again. When is the xp awarded? Both times, or the one time he's actually defeated?A general rule (mentioned earlier) is: if the party later encountered that same opponent in the same session, do not give them XP for him again. boctaoe
groveborn 12-22-07, 11:25 AM	A general rule (mentioned earlier) is: if the party later encountered that same opponent in the same session, do not give them XP for him again. boctaoe I can agree with this, but what if you start the session with this baddie, then advance the story by a few months? I'm asking these questions not for clarification, but to get your minds all to work. Is that challenge overcome, or merely delayed?
Taren 12-22-07, 04:53 PM	A general rule (mentioned earlier) is: if the party later encountered that same opponent in the same session, do not give them XP for him again. boctaoe what if the big bad guy the characters fight has a series of magic items or contingent spells that prevent him from actually being killed (Like Heal, Revivify, True Rez) etc... you just can't kill him. that's a REALLY tough fight, but if you send him away you don't die. and then you just wait for him to attack again while you are trying to figure out how to beat him. what about a lich? the goal being you destroy him once and for all, do you not award the Players any xp for destroying him temporarily in each fight they fight him with? what if the timeline advanced 3 months in that same session and the players fight him again?
ArcTan 12-22-07, 07:52 PM	Again, this is why DMs should not balance around the *monster*, but around the *task*. You set an XP award for the *task* based on how hard it is, and then award it based on whether the PCs accomplished the *task*. Sometimes the task is "Kill the guy". Sometimes the task is "Rescue the princess". Sometimes the task is "Defend the village".
Lamorake 12-22-07, 10:40 PM	Again, this is why DMs should not balance around the *monster*, but around the *task*. You set an XP award for the *task* based on how hard it is, and then award it based on whether the PCs accomplished the *task*. Sometimes the task is "Kill the guy". Sometimes the task is "Rescue the princess". Sometimes the task is "Defend the village". I'd have to agree with ArcTan on this. If you want your DMing job to be made easier and have the PCs stick to a plot/story line, try to reward them based on the goals rather than [3 trolls] = 3,400 exp for "x" party level equations... although if that's the general play style, so be it. My campaigns are no longer based on experience at all anymore. We base leveling off of the number of adventures played and how succesful the PCs have been in their goals. For example: At first level the PCs are required to complete one 4+ hour adventure with significant success to advance to second level. We use the 5gp/1exp method to still involve making items or using spells that require exp. Of course, this type of adventuring may not be for everyone, but it helps us stay on track and prevent leveling too fast and leaving our character/world development behind. It's all on what he GM and PCs decide they like to do things, really.
ArcTan 12-22-07, 11:17 PM	It doesn't help that D&D's assumptions in the DMG *are* based around a mindless monster-slaying dungeon crawl (with stupid monsters who line up to be slaughtered just like in old CRPGs), and therefore the system for calculating XP awards is designed around how big the monster is and how many monsters there are more than anything else. But even the DMG acknowledges that there's more than one way to "defeat" a monster, and that pure oceans-of-blood dungeon crawls get old real fast. (Frankly, I start to lose my investment in a story real fast if nothing feels *real*, and a world where *everything* from wild animals to human criminals to malevolent, plotting BBEGs is too proud to run and values their lives less than the chance of taking mine gets to be too much to swallow after a certain point.)
mvincent 12-23-07, 12:01 AM	values their lives less than the chance of taking mine gets to be too much to swallow after a certain point.I was finally able to reconcile this by acknowledging that people in D&D have absolute proof positive of an afterlife (i.e. it's as tangible as say, another continent)... and even that your status in said afterlife is likely affected by your willingness to sacrifice your life for your beliefs. Killing/dying is more like moving across the country to another job. I have bigger problems with suspension of disbelief in other areas (like always facing opponents that are suspiciously suitable as opposition).
ArcTan 12-23-07, 04:24 AM	I was finally able to reconcile this by acknowledging that people in D&D have absolute proof positive of an afterlife (i.e. it's as tangible as say, another continent)... and even that your status in said afterlife is likely affected by your willingness to sacrifice your life for your beliefs. Killing/dying is more like moving across the country to another job. That only applies to monsters who are intelligent, aware of the existence of the planes, and actually "fighting for their beliefs" at the time. It doesn't apply at all to wild animals, or Chaotic Neutral bandits who are attacking you because they want your stuff, or Neutral Evil mercenaries who are being paid to kill you because they enjoy killing, or any of those other things. Even assuming that people know enough about the afterlife to actually *want* to die or not be afraid of it (a huge assumption to make) it doesn't actually mean that every creature in the world is okay with going to the afterlife *right now*. I have bigger problems with suspension of disbelief in other areas (like always facing opponents that are suspiciously suitable as opposition). I honestly think that a better way to do it would be to establish it as a fact that powerful, mid-level PCs *do* routinely run into small fry whom they dispatch easily enough that playing out the combat is unnecessary ("You quickly dispatch the guards and move inside the castle"), and that, contrariwise, there are occasional encounters with way-too-high-level monsters where the goal is to *survive*, not to win (and where you get XP for surviving).
mvincent 12-23-07, 11:57 AM	It doesn't apply at all to wild animalsYup, but such beasts have no concept of mortality anyway (and I won't even speculate how innate instinct would function here, as D&D creatures are mostly outside of 'natural' selection) or Chaotic Neutral bandits who are attacking you because they want your stuff, or Neutral Evil mercenaries who are being paid to kill you because they enjoy killing, or any of those other things.Again, such people wouldn't fear death as much because they know that they are basically just going to another place if they die (a place which they've evidently chosen)... and the activities you listed should still serve to make them more powerful in the afterlife. it doesn't actually mean that every creature in the world is okay with going to the afterlife *right now*.Certainly. I still have opponent's flee. It just makes mortal fear less of an issue, so if an adventure says that an opponent plans to fight to the death, I don't question it's motives. there are occasional encounters with way-too-high-level monsters where the goal is to *survive*, not to win Interestingly, the DMG actually does specify that 5% of all encounters will be of 5+ CR's over the PC's level, requiring the PC's to flee just to survive. DM's don't enforce this rule enough, imo.
Grizzled Gryphon 12-23-07, 04:35 PM	I played in a game once where we were in Ravenloft, and ended up in a Mummies tomb. And not just any mummy, but the lord of that realm. Anyway, my character was the leader of that group, and we were looking for parts of a flaming sword. The Mummy had such a peice on a necklace around its neck. Upon entering the tomb, I told the other characters to touch nothing. They didn't like it, but they complied. At any rate, we eventually made our way to the "throne room", or whatever you want to call it, and confronted the Mummy and its minions. The Mummy was much less than pleased about our visit. Before it called for the attack, I calle out to it. It stayed its hand a moment to listen. I informed it that we had encountered the richs of his domain, yet had not touched a single copper of it. Also, we had taken great pains to avoid all of his minions, and had harmed none of them as well. He was impressed to say the least, and sent out a few minions to check if this was so. We waited and they returned to confirm what we said as ttue. I then informed the Mummy that we only wanted what was around his neck. He brokered a deal with us. He would give us the peice if we promised to bring him some fellows head. Thankfully, another member of the party agreed, and we got the peice and left the way we came. (I was playing a Samurai, so I didn't promise to bring any head back. As far as I was concerned, we had the peice, and no obligation to follow the promise. After all, I promised nothing.) Anyway, we got full experience for all of the encounters we had, even though no one raised a finger in offense. We still encountered them, and we still overcame them. It wasn't through combat, it was through cunning thinking and fast talking. Well, that and a few well placed spells.:P In fact, for the trouble we went to to not disturb the Mummy or his possessions, he even gave us a small chest of platinum peices. (which ironically equated to an approximate amount of treasure for the encounters we had.)
ArcTan 12-23-07, 05:50 PM	Yup, but such beasts have no concept of mortality anyway They feel pain, and they know that the logical thing to do to something that hurts you that you can't kill is to run away from it. (and I won't even speculate how innate instinct would function here, as D&D creatures are mostly outside of 'natural' selection) Nothing can really be outside of natural selection in the long term, for obvious reasons. Things that don't care if they die, die out. Even if I accept that things like Owlbears are made by wizards as mindless attack machines (which contradicts the actual flavor of Owlbears), you aren't going to convince me that, say, real animals like Bears and Lions and, yes, Dinosaurs would ever mindlessly attack a human until they died. (Even if they're "Dire".) Animals *don't do that*, and anyone with any experience with animals *knows* this. Again, such people wouldn't fear death as much because they know that they are basically just going to another place if they die (a place which they've evidently chosen)... and the activities you listed should still serve to make them more powerful in the afterlife. Not as *much*, but they still fear it. The PCs still fear death, don't they? Or do all PC parties keep on fighting until a TPK occurs? Certainly. I still have opponent's flee. It just makes mortal fear less of an issue, so if an adventure says that an opponent plans to fight to the death, I don't question it's motives. Published adventures are their own kettle of fish. When I'm *writing* an adventure, I don't have monsters fight to the death just because it would make that monster convenient to run. It does happen, yes, but if you don't think about *why* you make it happen, then the assumptions of the mechanics make it really easy to make that the default, which is stupid. Interestingly, the DMG actually does specify that 5% of all encounters will be of 5+ CR's over the PC's level, requiring the PC's to flee just to survive. DM's don't enforce this rule enough, imo. Mainly because the DMG doesn't tell you to award experience for "losing" encounters, which I think is BS.
Burdell 12-31-07, 03:44 PM	That only applies to monsters who are intelligent, aware of the existence of the planes, and actually "fighting for their beliefs" at the time. It doesn't apply at all to wild animals, or Chaotic Neutral bandits who are attacking you because they want your stuff, or Neutral Evil mercenaries who are being paid to kill you because they enjoy killing, or any of those other things. Actually, I found the movie "The Sixth Day" with Arnold interesting from that viewpoint. The bad guy's flunkies seem to be completely willing to sacrifice themselves to do their jobs, as is fairly typical for action movies, but even more so then usual. Then [spoiler warning if you haven't seen the movie] you find out why. The BBEG corporation has a memory dump/cloning system, so they can just make a new copy of you when you die in the pursuit of duty. If you think of Raise Dead, etc. in the same way, you don't even have to go to the afterlife, you can head home for a martini after the paladin Smites you and the Shadowy Power Behind All The Troubles brings you back. This, combined with the possible use of high charisma/magically assisted persuasion on the (usually) low will save/not too bright grunt level shock troops, and think of how in RL there are people willing to blow themselves up for causes, you can begin to see why there might be a lot of "fight to the death" mentality on the part of foes. And for wild animals, their attacks on humans don't seem to depend much on whether those humans are harmless joggers or armed hunters. Trigger the wrong instinctive response and you are in trouble.
ArcTan 12-31-07, 03:57 PM	This, combined with the possible use of high charisma/magically assisted persuasion on the (usually) low will save/not too bright grunt level shock troops, and think of how in RL there are people willing to blow themselves up for causes, you can begin to see why there might be a lot of "fight to the death" mentality on the part of foes. If there actually is a BBEG who is willing to spend the enormous resources it would take in D&D to resurrect all their grunt troops after they die, I haven't seen one. Resurrecting a single group of 20 1st-level guards would cost a *fortune* that even the richest BBEGs wouldn't be able to waste on such a thing. What you mention is indeed a cool twist, a twist that could be accomplished in D&D by using rule-breaking "eldritch machine"-style magic. But it's a *twist* because it involves behavior that is *not normal* among ordinary people. If it really is true that ordinary people will give their lives at the drop of a hat in your world, then the point of that twist goes completely away. And yes, sure, in real life there are real fanatics who will give their lives for a cause. That still shouldn't make it the norm in D&D. Hell, even if everyone *knows* they'll go to the afterlife eventually, if they care enough about their lives to not commit suicide *right now*, they care enough about their lives to run away from a losing battle and live to fight another day. They objectively are more useful to their cause if they do that. Even people who literally care about *nothing* but beating the PCs will probably run away rather than fight to the death at least half the time, or way more often than they do in D&D. And for wild animals, their attacks on humans don't seem to depend much on whether those humans are harmless joggers or armed hunters. Trigger the wrong instinctive response and you are in trouble. Wild animals' instincts don't tell them to fight to the death against a superior foe, except in extreme situations. Wild animals run away *a lot*. People who think of wild animals as "grunt" bad guys from a video game who can be used as cannon fodder know *nothing* about animals.
Burdell 12-31-07, 05:04 PM	If there actually is a BBEG who is willing to spend the enormous resources it would take in D&D to resurrect all their grunt troops after they die, I haven't seen one. Resurrecting a single group of 20 1st-level guards would cost a *fortune* that even the richest BBEGs wouldn't be able to waste on such a thing. [snip] Wild animals' instincts don't tell them to fight to the death against a superior foe, except in extreme situations. Wild animals run away *a lot*. People who think of wild animals as "grunt" bad guys from a video game who can be used as cannon fodder know *nothing* about animals. For the former, I was picturing more that a Lieutenant (who might be Raised by the true BBEG) is leading a bunch of grunts who are magically persuaded one way or another to give their lives for the cause but are otherwise expendable. I recall in one of the Amber novels, for example, one of the Amberites specifically seeks out (or creates, the distinction is unclear even to the protagonists) a dimension where they are worshipped as a god so all the troops will fight to the death for them. I agree "fight to the death" should still not be universal policy, but that it might be much *more* common then in our world. And for animals, I also agree that the vast majority of animals will run away from humans. What they consider extreme circumstances might not be apparent to adventurers though; visiting Alaska, we were warned repeatedly about the Moose, since it was calving season, not the Bears. And D&D certainly has "animals" like dinosaurs who might have a very high impression of how often they would be superior to a group of humans. That doesn't mean they wouldn't turn and run if the fight was going against them, though defending the young might still override that.
Grizzled Gryphon 01-02-08, 08:00 AM	So far, you all have been right. After, all, everyone has pointed out situations where either all creatures would fight to the death, or all creatures would not fight to the death. Here is a hypothetical situation for ya. Same army of Humans for both. Example one: Fearless Leader "All right, men!! The Army of Thaskel is about to attack!! We have to stop them here, or they will gain control of this pass, and our kingdom will lose a lot of revenue!! TO ARMS, MEN!!" Example two: Fearless Leader "All right, men!! The Army of Thaskel is about to attack!! We have to stop them here, or they will have open access to our capitol, where they will Pillage, Rape our women, then kill them and our children!! TO ARMS, MEN!!" There is a much greater chance that the army will fight to the death in the second situation then the first. It is all situational, folks. Given the right circumstances, anyone or anything can fight to the death, or seem as cowardly as a small kitten.
Goof 01-02-08, 11:50 AM	Anyway, we got full experience for all of the encounters we had, even though no one raised a finger in offense. We still encountered them, and we still overcame them. It wasn't through combat, it was through cunning thinking and fast talking. Well, that and a few well placed spells.:P In fact, for the trouble we went to to not disturb the Mummy or his possessions, he even gave us a small chest of platinum peices. (which ironically equated to an approximate amount of treasure for the encounters we had.) The problem I have, is which near encounters should count. Would waling past a bunch of solders from the enemy kingdom count? If they used spells/skills to sneak past I would give XP, but just walking past, not initiating combat. Or say they scry/teleport past everything, or just 1 big baddie blacking their path.
Grizzled Gryphon 01-03-08, 06:56 AM	Well, if they teleport past a bunch of encounters, or walk around a group of enemy soldiers, then they didn't 'encounter' them. In the example I gave above, we had to plenty to avoid setting off the undead guardians and traps. So, it wasn't like we just walked around guards and stuff, we had to deal with each room. It wasn't easy. But just walking past the enemy? That isn't an encounter. So, no exp.
Behaigo 01-03-08, 07:52 PM	In my group we have never used the xp chart in the DMG. All xp rewards are based on how hard you had to try to resolve the issue. If you are 4 levels below the CR of the encounter and you resolve the encounter in a single round without any risk or effort you aren't going to get much xp. However, if you are 4 levels above the CR of the encounter, but luck is not favoring you and you barley make it out alive you will get significantly more xp than the previous example. The xp chart is a useful guideline, but is unable to encompass many of the finer points of an encounter.
mvincent 01-03-08, 08:05 PM	In my group we have never used the xp chart in the DMG. All xp rewards are based on how hard you had to try to resolve the issue.So if your group causes an encounter to be harder than normal (by careful non-planning, sub-optimal tactics, and maybe accidentally healing the opposition a few times), you would get more XP? And you could technically be penalized for rolling well or out-thinking the opposition?
Grizzled Gryphon 01-04-08, 08:11 AM	So if your group causes an encounter to be harder than normal (by careful non-planning, sub-optimal tactics, and maybe accidentally healing the opposition a few times), you would get more XP? And you could technically be penalized for rolling well or out-thinking the opposition? Looks that way to me. I could see them at the local magic shop. "Dude, don't buy that magic sword!! You will be way too good in combat, and we won't get as much xp anymore!!' "Whoa, right. Good call, I almost slipped up, there..."
Behaigo 01-04-08, 02:27 PM	I honestly found both of those amusing, however it is not that way at all. Mostly because of a concept I like to call "roleplaying." In roleplaying, participants adopt and act out the role of characters, or parts, that may have personalities, motivations, and backgrounds different from their own. Roleplaying, also known as RP to some, is like being in an improvisational drama or free-form theater, in which the participants are the actors who are playing parts, and the audience. In short, our characters do not know that making a situation more difficult will yield higher xp rewards, and intentionally making an encounter more difficult for greater xp would be metagaming. In fact, if anyone in the party behaved like that they would probably get a penelty on xp, as using sub-optimal tactics doesn't realy teach you much.
mvincent 01-04-08, 04:32 PM	if anyone in the party behaved like that they would probably get a penelty on xp, as using sub-optimal tactics doesn't realy teach you much.Of course we were just joking, but essentially XP is simply a reward system, and you reward behavior that you wish to encourage. 'Default' D&D mostly rewards killin' things and taking their stuff, but other system encourage other types of behavior and your method is fine... it simply pays to be aware of the type of behavior it can subtly encourage. Your players probably won't purposefully try to use sub-optimal tactics... but at the same time, they're not going to be overly concerned if their tactics don't work very well (mind you: such an attitude might just make the game more fun for many players).
Behaigo 01-04-08, 04:40 PM	stuff My response was somewhat a counter joke (hence the definition of roleplaying :D) I've just found that the standard xp reward system fails to capture a lot of the finer details of many encounters (such as various ambush and terrain situations). Not that I think all xp should be given "on the fly," but I definitely think it should be at least somewhat dictated by the situation.
solbergb 01-04-08, 05:02 PM	we all know that you don't need to kill the enemy to defeat him. but is simply removing him from the encounter enough? if I use "nybor's joyful Journey" on the one and only bad guy we face he's 100 miles away and isn't getting back any time soon... he's not really been defeated just kinda postponed. does it count as defeat in the eyes of the DMG XP awards? Well...it depends on the goal of the encounter. If he's just blocking your access to your real goal, and you'll be gone before he gets back then yes, you defeated the encounter (similar to casting "Fear" on wild animals....they're still in the woods but your journey is unaffected). If the goal is "Stay alive or keep someone else alive while this guy attacks you and kill or drive him off" (he's an assassin maybe) then you've defeated the encounter. You're more likely to have a return visit though and should prepare accordingly. If capturing or killing him IS the goal or if he's got the item you need to acquire then no, you didn't defeat the encounter, you might instead have made it harder.
Grizzled Gryphon 01-05-08, 04:44 PM	or if he's got the item you need to acquire then no, you didn't defeat the encounter, you might instead have made it harder. This is situational as well. If you don't know that he has the item you seek, and you send him off with said spell, you should still get XP for defeating him (you encountered him and survived the encounter). But, now you have to figure out where he is and go find him. Assuming, of course, you find out he has the item in question. But this should apply even if you knew he had the item. Perhaps you felt that by continueing to fight him, you or your companions were going to die, so you used that spell on him to save yourself or companions. Sure, you didn't get the item, but you still defeated him, for all intents and purposes. Also remember, 'defeating' and 'killing' are not one and the same. If you have a reoccuring villian that you face ten times in a campaign, and you only finally get rid of him for good that last time, you should get exp for each encounter with him, UNLESS you don't survive one (or more, gods forbid) of those ecounters. I don't think the adventure seed (you must recover the sword of Araxak) should have anything to do with an encounter. If the party defeats Araxak, but in such a way that he survives, and you fail to get his sword, should have very little to do with the XP for that encounter. That is a plot hook, not an XP award. Now, if the DM had planned on Araxak getting away with the sword and extending his game that way, but you manage to acquire the sword anyway, then that would be worth an XP bonus. But, the plot should have very little to do with the XP of the encounters. The results of the encounter might have tons of effect on the plot of the game, which is both fine and expected. But the XP for surviving an encounter shouldn't be affected by the encounters impact on the plot.
ArcTan 01-06-08, 12:08 AM	Looks that way to me. I could see them at the local magic shop. "Dude, don't buy that magic sword!! You will be way too good in combat, and we won't get as much xp anymore!!' "Whoa, right. Good call, I almost slipped up, there..." The availability of magical gear should be under the DM's control. PCs should have roughly the amount of gear the wealth-by-level charts for their character would indicate. If they have less than that, the XP they get should be inflated. If they have more than that (if a PC somehow lucks into a +4 weapon at 5th level) then their XP should be docked. This is basic, and the reasoning for it should be obvious.
Grizzled Gryphon 01-06-08, 06:26 AM	The availability of magical gear should be under the DM's control. PCs should have roughly the amount of gear the wealth-by-level charts for their character would indicate. If they have less than that, the XP they get should be inflated. If they have more than that (if a PC somehow lucks into a +4 weapon at 5th level) then their XP should be docked. This is basic, and the reasoning for it should be obvious. ?? Did you read the post that was in response to? I would guess not, as you missed the point of my post entirely. First off, it was merely a joke, more pointed at some of those that frequent these boards (sure you know who I am talking about. They are called 'munchkins' :P ), and what they would do in the situation described by Behaigo. In other words, "this is how some people would treat that". Second off, it really didn't have anything to do with the magic sword. I was merely joking about how some people would literally nerf themselves if they thought it would get them more levels. Sad, but true. I wasn't trying to imply that a sword that the PC's wouldn't normally have at that level was available, or that there was any imbalance with that factor of the game.
Taren 01-06-08, 11:42 AM	The availability of magical gear should be under the DM's control. PCs should have roughly the amount of gear the wealth-by-level charts for their character would indicate. what if some of the characters have wealth well beyond their level? and some don't? (if someone died and brought in a new PC) do you account for the total level or do you account for each individual character?
ArcTan 01-06-08, 08:45 PM	By default, if the party cooperated to beat an encounter, then XP is divided evenly for the encounter, adjusted by the effective level (accounting for wealth disparities and the like) of each character. No one gets to coast on full XP by giving one character a super-powerful item he uses to buff everyone else.
ArcTan 01-06-08, 08:46 PM	?? Did you read the post that was in response to? I would guess not, as you missed the point of my post entirely. First off, it was merely a joke, more pointed at some of those that frequent these boards (sure you know who I am talking about. They are called 'munchkins' :P ), and what they would do in the situation described by Behaigo. In other words, "this is how some people would treat that". Second off, it really didn't have anything to do with the magic sword. I was merely joking about how some people would literally nerf themselves if they thought it would get them more levels. Sad, but true. I wasn't trying to imply that a sword that the PC's wouldn't normally have at that level was available, or that there was any imbalance with that factor of the game. I think my point is still on-point. XP is based solely on how hard it actually was to beat the encounter. If the PCs make it easier to beat the encounter, by buying magic items, then the encounter gives less XP. (So, in your example, if the PCs really *never* bought magic items at a magic shop, and therefore had a great deal less equipment than they "should" for that level, they would indeed get more XP.) What's so ridiculous about this situation? To me it seems perfectly fair and consistent. You nerf yourself, you earn more XP. You twink yourself, you get less.
Voran 01-07-08, 07:12 PM	I would argue that for the cops/serial killer example, it'd be possible for the cops to earn a 'xp reward' for the encounter, assuming they've achieved some goals: "Learn about serial killer" or "Prevent them from killing X" or "Forcing the killer to run away and bide their time". They wouldn't get the benefits that ending the threat 'permanently' would have, but unless they were completely clueless and didn't do anything, they'd have learned from the experience. Unfortunately, in this case, its also possible the serial killer would 'earn xp' for achieving some goals against the cops, even though not getting the full benefits of "Kill my targets, and not have to change my routine". I'm all for scaling the rewards based on how difficult the goal ended up being. Like "Stopping Serial Killer Carrottop" would be worth an X CR rating for xp. "Stopping him AND finding out where all the victims are buried" is worth more. "Stopping him by making him run away to come back later" might be worth a little less. In a way, I like those systems that give you xp based on 'type of threat/challenge' in a lump scale X for minor, Y for moderate, Z for severe, instead of the 'each foe is worth a specific amount of xp, add em up and divide with the group' because that doesn't cover the aspect of how hard it was to drop the foe. You step into the room and see the 20th level BBEG lying in a pool of blood slowly going into negative HP cause some 20th level goodie just kicked his ass. If you walk up and stab him to finish him off, I'd argue you wouldn't get much xp for finishing him off. The guy who beat him down gets the lionshare of xp for the encounter, you might get a handful for quickening those last 4 hitpoints. Or the fun exaggerated example of "Tiamat is stuck in a room she can't escape, and all you have to do is push a button and a nuke will go off obliterating her". How much xp do you get for pushing a button?