Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TripleF 02-02-05, 03:35 AM	In a couple of games I have played in the DM has decided that if a fight end too fast and in our favor, that he will cut our experience. Say my parties mage uses both Sudden Empower and Maximize on fireball that utterly slays the foes in one fell swoop. The DM would decide that is not really a challenge and we will only get half of what that encounter was really worth. Or say I as a fighter scores 3 crits in one round and flays the villian. I think this is totally stupid on the DMs part and have told him so. To me it smacks of DM vs PC and the DM is punishing the party for killing his cherished NPCs without them allowing the DM to show off his monsters. Of course I am happy that he is atleast letting our tricks work with resorting to some BS decision like the moster instantly gains 50 hit points or he teleports away. Am I being fair here in telling my DM he is wrong or am I just being a whiney player that wants too much?
Amryll 02-02-05, 03:56 AM	well it would depend. i would say it is fair if the encounter is over before it starts, as with the fireball senario. but if say combat goes a while and then the fighter wastes the foe with several crits no, its not fair to cut xp.think of it like this- what did the pcs learn from the encounter? in the fireball one, they wouldnt lean much besides that fireball can blow the hell outta enemies.
TheMercYouForgot 02-02-05, 03:56 AM	Xp gain is a funny bit of the game. There is actually a part of the Xp Reward section for modifing XP based upon challenge. There is another way to look at it. He could always cut the xp but give you more monsters. Have him put more in the way so life gets harder. Let him put X number of rooms/events between you and the villian. If you guys go too fast through a room? There's another one waiting. If you go too slow? He lightens to the load. If the goal is for you guys to be out of spells, low on health, and hurting by the time the day is over? He just needs more badguys. It all depends on tactics, luck, and choices in monsters. If he's sick of certain tactics? He should foil them. Counterspells (even if they don't succeed it offers him the chance to make you think you might not pop off your uber attack), Light Fortification Armor (just enough to make you wonder if you made that crit count), etc etc. And hey, the badguy could always be running a Protection From Energy spell set to fire. You Max the fireball.. and nothing happens. He's making a judgement call. Nothing too hideous. He's still giving you the loot, which means that you could go over your estimated character wealth while you're at it. Suggest that he can harry the party with lower loot critters to compensate. There are ways out of this one. It's an issue of balance. Give the poor guy a break, he might have wanted to have something wild happen and instead you gave him the ending of Wizards. (That's when the two wizard brothers are face to face.. and after they talk for a moment.. you're getting set for the big finish.. and he tells him, "I want to show you a trick I learned after you left home." And he pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. No flash, no fire works, no nothing.. but a simple *bang*) Now this is fun every now and again, but all the time? Just some food for thought. He's not going insane with power so I can't give you a bigger rock to toss for an idea other than "Find a solution" Happy Gaming! And even if you only get 50% xp, you're still getting 100% loot! So enjoy! - The Merc You Forgot
Aeromus 02-02-05, 05:24 AM	Your DM is well within his rights. I don't even use the XP rules when I DM.
Thorak 02-02-05, 07:37 AM	Experience is based on challenge. If you're breezing through a fight, you should earn less experience. That said, it'll balance out. If your mage blows everything on the first couple fights, making them really easy, the next few will be unusually tough, so you should get more XP to compensate.
Another Gnome 02-02-05, 07:46 AM	Cutting the experience in half if the enemy falls with a single blow is a good idea - for a DM who awards double experience every time the PCs run away from the enemy. Die rolling makes it a game of chance. If chance is the only factor that makes the outcome of an encounter unexpected, putting the blame on the other factors (such as character build) is just cheap. It may also create issues with the treasure per level advancement, which in turn will make things even worse when the PCs become overequipped for their level and all the more encounters end too quickly. I don't know why so many DMs refuse to believe that the rules are there to help them.
11d7 02-02-05, 08:17 AM	The while I've been DMing (like 5 sessons) I've been doing that becuase really when you arn't challenged by something Its a lower CR than you should be getting, even if it is equal to your level. I lower the XP gained by either 1 or 2 steps down the chart on top of the fact I already only award 20% XP becuase I think 3.x levels to fast, I like 2nd ed leveling better, no the method, just how it takes longer, classes get their own XP requirments.
Shard of Suzail 02-02-05, 08:43 AM	I give out xp when a scenario is completed, i`m not fussed how the party completes it. Largely thats because, in my games, my players rarely go in a predictable direction, but it would also work for your dm.
Nytmare 02-02-05, 09:51 AM	I've never liked the concept of XP being the driving force of the game. I feel as though if that's what my players' main concern is, I'm not doing a good enough job. I also disagree with your view that adjusting the XP gains somehow makes the game an unfairly weighted competition between the DM and the players. No part of what you said would make me think that the DM is being petty and "punishing the party for killing his cherished NPCs". Doing a little but learning a lot should be worth a lot. Doing a lot but learning little should be worth little. Doing a lot and learning a lot should be worth a lot.
fedexrico 02-02-05, 10:21 AM	the DM can do whatever he wants to do. if u ask me i would just put monsters with more challenge rating ... suppose he is "spawning" CR 4 monsters that ur team can slay easily, well, i would just put 2 monsters of CR 7 and meh ! take it ( and there, if u slay them quickly ... well u deserved teh xp ) the DM is being stupid, a serious DM would never say "oh ! ur not getting as much XP as ur supposed to !" a good DM would just shut up and give XP as if it were the normal thing u were supposed to get, and if anyone complains say: "i think its the apropiate amount of XP for you guys, i have something in mind..." with that "i have something in mind" u make ppl believe that u r doing this for them and not against them aaanyways, i like putting harder monsters or putting a lot of weak ones .. ( for example the other day i had to put 30 orcs for a team with 2 lvl 2 and 1 lvl 3 ) and it was pretty hard even though orcs separatly .. cya
Thoronmir 02-02-05, 10:21 AM	The propriety of reducing the “standard” XP award depends on the circumstances that make an encounter too easy. Like someone said, XP is supposed to reflect the party gaining greater understanding of their own abilities and their foes. I’d like to think I could devise an encounter that would not be such a cakewalk, but, yes, if the Wizard unloads and defeats the monsters in one round, I’d probably tweak the XP award down a little. On the other hand, I would not punish the players for the vagaries of chance. A Fighter landing three Critical Hits has almost certainly learned something about how to swing his sword. I don’t increase XP awards for challenges overcome despite poor rolls by PCs; I won’t decrease XP awards when the party rolls well. But to be honest, it’s been almost a decade since I’ve really worried about how much XP I was receiving. As long as I’m having fun, I’m into my character, and I gain a level every so often, I’m a happy guy. I don’t wait, calculator in hand, for XP awards to see if I think my DM is “cheating” me. Only the DM knows how truly challenging an encounter was for my group. He’s the only one who can decide what the encounter was worth.
Shard of Suzail 02-02-05, 11:00 AM	Sudden empowered maximised spells are certainly a bit of a menace, especially at a lower level. I am left wondering what the party would think if they were all instantly fried by a similar spell being slapped upon them. Those feats, in some games, can really make the whole thing a bit pointless, since the only way to balance them is to give the enemy the same or render them somehow magic immune. I would remind everyone that, if you engage in an arms race with the gm and use your amazing powers without restraint, then its only a matter of time before those same powers get used on you and more effectively. Better to have less xp than to sit down at the table and be told "Everyone is hit by a spell, you can save if you want, but chances are, half of you are dead regardless".
Stuntman 02-02-05, 11:58 AM	I don't think it is fair to lower the XP after the fact. If you knew ahead of time that the encounter is easy, then lower the XP. What you can end up doing is punishing the PC's for using very good tactics. The PC's will end up thinking that there is no point in thinking up something clever. Worse yet, the PC's will just drag out the battle and then after the 20th round, cast the sudden maximised spell.
Nytmare 02-02-05, 12:01 PM	On the other hand, I would not punish the players for the vagaries of chance. How is it punishment? It's like a guy who wins 50 dollars on a lottery ticket and complains that it's not fair cause he'd make more money if he put in a full week of work at the office. Punishment: "You critted the monster on the first round of initiative, congratulations, everyone lose 1000 XP and your favorite item has been sundered."
Hochiu 02-02-05, 12:02 PM	In a couple of games I have played in the DM has decided that if a fight end too fast and in our favor, that he will cut our experience. Say my parties mage uses both Sudden Empower and Maximize on fireball that utterly slays the foes in one fell swoop. The DM would decide that is not really a challenge and we will only get half of what that encounter was really worth. Or say I as a fighter scores 3 crits in one round and flays the villian. I think this is totally stupid on the DMs part and have told him so. To me it smacks of DM vs PC and the DM is punishing the party for killing his cherished NPCs without them allowing the DM to show off his monsters. Of course I am happy that he is atleast letting our tricks work with resorting to some BS decision like the moster instantly gains 50 hit points or he teleports away. Am I being fair here in telling my DM he is wrong or am I just being a whiney player that wants too much? Could you detail the party level and the monsters you were fighting in those instances?
Nytmare 02-02-05, 12:06 PM	What you can end up doing is punishing the PC's for using very good tactics. Planning your tactics ahead of time would mean that the character worked for the experience. Rushing in and rolling a 20 is a little different. Unless that's your primary strategy, in which case you need a little more help.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-02-05, 12:50 PM	In my games, I'm even more "evil". Always remember, XP is given based on the THREAT posed by the monsters (or situation). If a party is of average level 6, but routinely beat monsters as if said party was of level 9 (often by min/max, powergaming, "tactical character creation"), I'll treat the party as level 9 for the purpose of experience. I think your DM was right.
Thorak 02-02-05, 12:53 PM	I don't think it is fair to lower the XP after the fact. If you knew ahead of time that the encounter is easy, then lower the XP. What you can end up doing is punishing the PC's for using very good tactics. The PC's will end up thinking that there is no point in thinking up something clever. Worse yet, the PC's will just drag out the battle and then after the 20th round, cast the sudden maximised spell. XP is based on the encounter's Challenge Rating. What's that italicized word? Challenge. If the party reduced the challenge the encounter was, they deserve less experience. This doesn't apply to lucky chances, like getting a couple crits in a row. If one party member, however, has a bright idea and, instead of charging through the door and confronting whatever's in there, you're going to quietly drill a hole, seal the exits magically, and start unleashing gas and area-effect spells in the deathtrap until everything dies, then you're getting less XP for the encounter. Though you may gain bonus XP for a good plan. A little more accurately, if you surprise a giant, Dominate it in the first round, and then walk it off a cliff, you're not getting the full experience. There was very little challenge.
Thoronmir 02-02-05, 01:01 PM	How is it punishment? It's like a guy who wins 50 dollars on a lottery ticket and complains that it's not fair cause he'd make more money if he put in a full week of work at the office. Punishment: "You critted the monster on the first round of initiative, congratulations, everyone lose 1000 XP and your favorite item has been sundered."I design an encounter for the party. I try to account for the party's abilities and tactics to make the encounter challenging and worthy of a specific XP award. Scenario 1: The encounter is resolved, but requires much greater effort by the party due to some anemic rolls. No one can hit; no one can save; yet somehow they defeat the challenge. I'm not about to increase the XP award for the encounter just because the players' dice are "on strike" ... I won't "reward" them for poor rolls. Scenario 2: The encounter is resolved with much less effort by the PCs because one or more of them happen to roll extraordinarily well. They all crit; they all save; and the challenge hits the floor faster than a prom dress. I'm not going to decrease the XP award for the encounter just because the players' dice aer on steroids ... I won't "punish" them for good rolls. That's what I meant (it's also what I said). If I design an encounter but forget that the party mage can cast Sudden, Maximized Flaming Balls of Fire From Between His Butt Cheeks, then, yeah, the encounter was not a true challenge and the XP I intended to award for the challenge might be too high. But reducing an XP award simply because the party rolls well ... that's just punishing them for success. We should also distinguish between "DM Oversights" (see "Balls of Fire from his Butt Cheeks" above) and "Creative Tactics" (when a player devises a novel solution to an encounter). I'll reward clever use of the party's skills. In my opinion, whether an XP should be adjusted depends on why the encounter was "easy" ... an encounter that was never a true challenge does not warrant the same XP award as an encounter that would have been a true test if not for some timely luck and/or ingenuity from the players.
Beamup 02-02-05, 02:13 PM	The fundamental problem with the approach of "the PCs used effective tactics that made the encounter easy, so they should get less XP" is that it PENALIZES players for thinking and trying to use their abilities effectively. And, conversely, REWARDS stupidity. The XP for an encounter should always be set based on the circumstances in effect prior to the encounter, and not modified thereafter. If the PCs actually have greater power than normal characters of their level, then yes, XP awards should be reduced. But if the PCs have normal power levels and simply use what they've got effectively - they should not be penalized for doing so.
TripleF 02-02-05, 03:22 PM	I might not have such a problem with it if I wasn't told about it, because I wouldn't know otherwise. Hmm, maybe it is a problem of giving out experience after every encounter. If over the course of the day's encounters one would have a bigger picture of how challenging the encounters are, then maybe experience should be doled out. Sure the wizard nuked the first encounter with a Sudden Maxed/empowerd fireball but then he is without that for the rest of the day.
Razoreface 02-02-05, 04:18 PM	Technically within his right, your DM just doesn't like that character. He didn't like it before when he popped that dumb wizard with the overkill suddened spells of yours. But the lowering or raising of xp is supposed to be when there is a real situational reason that an encounter is less or more dangerous. If you were up on cliffs and fired down onto an orc band with nothing but axes, it's a lot less challenging, and your characters weren't in any danger. Sure they get less XP, but none of them had a chance of dying. But, the DM is also not that bright yet. Most DMs learn, some quicker than others, that one big enemy is generally pretty stupid. Basically him cutting the xp is him punishing you, for having a once a day powerful ability that took basically your entire character focus. If there was a Paladin with good +damage feats for smiting and he'd kill everything in one hit, would the DM be doing the same thing? If I remember right, your sudden/emp fireball kicks out a ball that does 32-45 damage in one go. Against a level 4 mage that's beyond overkill, and when your only enemy is the mage, that's a quick encounter gone. A fireball that low level that still averages out in the upper 30's for damage is actually still exceedingly deadly to even d10 hp classes with pretty good Con. While the question about sudden being too powerful or not is an honest one, the DM could do a lot better in dealing with it. He could have one big guy and a dozen orcs all get wiped out by it, or he could have four or five guys who are well spaced and he might lose two.
Stuntman 02-02-05, 04:56 PM	Let's say I have the sudden maximise and empower feats and have fireball prepared. I get into an encounter. If I use the sudden max fireball, I will quickly end the battle. However, if I pull out my quarterstaff and pummel the monster, it will take a lot longer. You cannot say that if I do the smart thing and use my spell that I should receive less XP than if I did the dumb thing and use my staff in melee. Another thing to consider is that the sudden feats can only be used once per day. If you have a few encounters per day, the encounter where you use the sudden spell will be easy, but the other encounters will be harder. In any encounter, you have to decide if you want to burn your feat now or save it for later. This is already taken into account when determining CR. If you decide to save your feat and not have any more encounters that day, you basically wasted the use for that day. Over the course of a series of encounters, things will even out. There will be some quick battles (due to good decisions and luck) and some that are more drawn out (due to poor decisions and luck). A party that makes good decisions and/or has good luck that ends the battle quickly should not be penalised for it. Likewise, a party that makes poor decisions or has bad luck should not be rewarded either.
Phrennzy 02-02-05, 05:32 PM	the party mage can cast Sudden, Maximized Flaming Balls of Fire From Between His Butt Cheeks I SO want this feat! What are the prerequisites? :mage:
Shard of Suzail 02-02-05, 06:12 PM	It does surprise me that we dont see more all wizard parties these days. A full pack of wizards can do immense and immediate damage in combat even with tiny spells like magic missile. Couple that with the option of thief type spells for dungeons and teleport spells etc at later levels for mobility and you have an instant death squad. Few opponents will stand up to the hammering long enough to do damage that needs healing and the party is probably entirely invisible or flying anyway and thus out of harms way. One wizard can be a handful, but a whole load of player wizards is mind bending in its potential. They can even share spells and spellbooks. add to that the fact that, while sudden maximise can only be use in battle once, it often ends that battle. Now, give that to every spellcaster player and you`ve got a big load of hurt that can be dispensed all day long and sometimes all at once. *shivers*
Snommelp 02-02-05, 06:25 PM	The fundamental problem with the approach of "the PCs used effective tactics that made the encounter easy, so they should get less XP" is that it PENALIZES players for thinking and trying to use their abilities effectively. And, conversely, REWARDS stupidity. There is a problem with this line of thinking. Let's say your DM expects you to fight Giant A. Giant A is a CR of, let's say 12. However, Giant A has terrible mental stats. The party, instead of fighting, uses diplomacy to outsmart Giant A and get past him. Now the party has beaten the encounter which was set at a CR 12. However, since it was a game of wits the CR would make more sense at something around 4 or 5. Should the PCs still get the experience for a CR 12 when they only did the work to get past a CR 5?
Wrolf 02-02-05, 07:19 PM	TripleF is right. How many empowered fireballs does the group have? How are the other encounters that day decided? If these wizards can walk across the country side flinging fireballs, what is the challenge? .... Sure the wizard nuked the first encounter with a Sudden Maxed/empowerd fireball but then he is without that for the rest of the day.
amalcon 02-02-05, 07:41 PM	Punishment? Penalty? All the PCs are being kept even, so all this does is make the party gain levels slower. Enjoy it! The low to mid levels are the best part! Once you hit, say, 13th level, "tactics" becomes "look through the spellbook and find the appropriate spell for the situation", "diplomacy" becomes "well, we've proven ourselves trustworthy enough through past actions, and all these people can vouch for us," and even roleplaying begins to suffer from the "we've done it all before" syndrome. The players are not being punished because their characters get less experience, and the characters get less experience because they did not experience as much. In fact, except in rare instances when the players came up with some absolutely brilliant, novel tactic that just decimated the enemy, I've yet to see a DM not do this.
allenchan 02-02-05, 08:39 PM	The mage in example wasted his two 1/day Sudden abilities, and a spell. For the rest of the day he would be notably weaker, and having thus expended those "Resources" (feats are a very valuable thing) I would give them regular (or near regular, not half) xp. OR, if half xp was rewarded, I would have the rest of the encounters offer slightly more then regular xp, since they would prove a bit more challenging, I am guessing
Max Overload 02-03-05, 04:14 AM	I'm inclined to believe you should be getting full xp for those encounters. One the only times I will reduce a reward is when I have (often accidently) weakened an encounter. If the PC's did not in fact face a CR6, I won't be awarding CR6 xp for it. However, if I've prepared a proper CR6, set it up favorably (at least correctly) for the monster, and you kill it, talk it out of fighting, scare it away, whatever. You are getting the award. It's no good cutting the rewards just because the party set your monster's head on fire in Round 1 and put it out with a greataxe in Round 2.
Tenzhi 02-03-05, 04:38 AM	You cannot say that if I do the smart thing and use my spell that I should receive less XP than if I did the dumb thing and use my staff in melee. Sure I can. Taking the path of least resistance may be the smart thing to do, but it also takes the least effort. Effort equals experience and advancement The easiest (and often smartest) way to resolve an encounter is to bypass it entirely - which is generally worth no experience at all. The less you do the less you gain, or to put it in more familiar terms: no pain, no gain.
Thorak 02-03-05, 07:50 AM	The fundamental problem with the approach of "the PCs used effective tactics that made the encounter easy, so they should get less XP" is that it PENALIZES players for thinking and trying to use their abilities effectively. And, conversely, REWARDS stupidity. The XP for an encounter should always be set based on the circumstances in effect prior to the encounter, and not modified thereafter. If the PCs actually have greater power than normal characters of their level, then yes, XP awards should be reduced. But if the PCs have normal power levels and simply use what they've got effectively - they should not be penalized for doing so. You know what, though? It's based on a challenge rating system. If the encounter was less of a challenge than it should have been, then you deserve less XP. Because yes, you did learn less. To borrow an example, you didn't learn a darn thing about giants except being reminded that they're stupid when you use Diplomacy to confuse it and get past. What lessons did you learn in the process from seeing the giant say "duhhrr, okay."? What experience did the party gain? Nobody's saying that tactics aren't a good thing. An absolutely genius bit of tactics that results in nobody taking damage isn't reducing the challenge of the encounter. It means you got lucky, tactically as opposed to random-dice-roll wise. If it's a specific tactic you keep using because it's ridiculously effective, like Sudden Empowered Maximized Fireballing everything in sight, then yes, you won't be learning much. You already know it fries things. That's why, in martial arts, you spar. Because, when training, you need to actually react to actual situations and learn from them. If you know one move that works regardless of the situation, you're not getting better at fighting. You've just discovered a way to not need to learn anything else. In other words, to not gain experience.
Jemima Aslana 02-03-05, 11:24 AM	I never use the XP system. Two reasons: 1. I'm lazy 2. I want my players to see monsters and not numbers. If there's something I hate it's when players start rule-lawyering on me. So what if a Medusa has a CR of 7, I'll adjust that depending on equipment (friend's as well as foe's) surroundings (in a forest or on a ripe wheat field a mage focusing on fiery spells is gonna be handicapped) I'd probably adjust some things based on which feats some of the players have and which /day options they have left. A player doesn't need to know what I'd originally planned something to pay off xp-wise, and should I change the amount I wouldn't tell - they don't need to know. If someone pulls out the MM or DMG and tries to bash me they'll get penalties for meta-gaming, and the xp will lower more and more the further they try to argue. In order to avoid these situations before they arise I simply don't use xp. I set up my games so that after a short campaign the things the players have been through will mean a level-up, and in a long campaign I'll have a place in the plotline where I'll let them gain a level. Of course this is based on how much xp they'd get if I did count it, but this way I can give in to my laziness and focus more on making a good consistent plot with consistent NPC's, and my players can focus on RPing without being distracted by numbers. This of course means that if the quickest way to the 'boss' is to the right and they go left it's their problem. They don't get more xp because of extra random skirmishes, but let that be a 'penalty' for missing the hints, which I *will* have given them. If they show extra good role-playing I might decide to award them, but never with xp, items possibly or an extra hint to where the solution might be found. The only thing I might use xp for is if a beginner needs something to let him know that things are happening on his stat sheet - and it's not only his amount of hp fluctuating :P I might allow for this, but only until he'd have learned the ropes of my gaming style. My 0.02$ based on my own style of playing.
Infusco von Kempelen 02-03-05, 11:26 AM	I heard about a scenario where the heroes entered the Main Villain's lair and the Barbarian turned Rogue snuck behind him to get the first strike with his scythe before the rest of the party would burst in. He raged, hit the guy in the back with a critical hit (x4 damage) and rolled full damage on attack and sneak attack. End of battle. The DM was stunned, the players were amazed, and they agreed that only the rogue should get *some* experience points. Amazingly enough, all the latter villains had some kind of detect invisibility handy. Anyway, aside from this, I personally have never used experience points in my young DMing carreer. I'll award them a level or something when they've completed the scenario, or when they've reached a critical point in it (if it's a long one). In my eyes, this avoids the "I wish there was another ambush for more XP" kind of thinking, and will leave the players eager to advance the plot. You know, more than they already do, of course.
Stuntman 02-03-05, 12:15 PM	There is a problem with this line of thinking. Let's say your DM expects you to fight Giant A. Giant A is a CR of, let's say 12. However, Giant A has terrible mental stats. The party, instead of fighting, uses diplomacy to outsmart Giant A and get past him. Now the party has beaten the encounter which was set at a CR 12. However, since it was a game of wits the CR would make more sense at something around 4 or 5. Should the PCs still get the experience for a CR 12 when they only did the work to get past a CR 5? Sure they should. They probably did some work and used some intelligence to determine that there is an easier way to defeat the giant than going toe to toe. They should get the XP for being smart about it rather than using brute force all of the time. When you defeat a creature, you don't have to defeat it in combat. No matter how you defeat it, you should get the same amount of XP.
Stuntman 02-03-05, 12:26 PM	Sure I can. Taking the path of least resistance may be the smart thing to do, but it also takes the least effort. Effort equals experience and advancement The easiest (and often smartest) way to resolve an encounter is to bypass it entirely - which is generally worth no experience at all. The less you do the less you gain, or to put it in more familiar terms: no pain, no gain. You gain XP for passing challenges. It does not matter how you pass them whether through combat or other means, whether you use an easy method or a hard method, whether you roll well or not. Effort has nothing to do with how much XP you gain.
Stuntman 02-03-05, 12:32 PM	This of course means that if the quickest way to the 'boss' is to the right and they go left it's their problem. They don't get more xp because of extra random skirmishes, but let that be a 'penalty' for missing the hints, which I *will* have given them. What I do is I give XP for encounters that they avoid that is relavent to the adventure. If they take route A and have a tougher time with more encounters and defeat them and complete the adventure they get the XP. If they picked up on hints and figured out that route B is easier, I would give them the same XP as if they defeated all of the encounters in route A. That way I do not penalise them for figuring out and choosing the easier route.
MasterOfShrouds 02-03-05, 12:40 PM	Always that DM has final say on whatever he wants. You dont like his/her way of DMing...dont play. Simple as that. I hate this Whats a Player to Do Forum because noone realizes who cares what other people say DM has final say. "People love to follow fools; they dont feel so alone then"
Beamup 02-03-05, 02:19 PM	You know what, though? It's based on a challenge rating system. If the encounter was less of a challenge than it should have been, then you deserve less XP. Because yes, you did learn less. To borrow an example, you didn't learn a darn thing about giants except being reminded that they're stupid when you use Diplomacy to confuse it and get past. What lessons did you learn in the process from seeing the giant say "duhhrr, okay."? What experience did the party gain? You know what, though? If the possibility to talk their way out of the fight existed, that is an external circumstance, in effect prior to the encounter, that made it easier and XP should be less regardless of whether they fought or talked. If the players didn't bother to think and look for a non-combat solution, that's their problem AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR IT. Nobody's saying that tactics aren't a good thing. An absolutely genius bit of tactics that results in nobody taking damage isn't reducing the challenge of the encounter. It means you got lucky, tactically as opposed to random-dice-roll wise. If it's a specific tactic you keep using because it's ridiculously effective, like Sudden Empowered Maximized Fireballing everything in sight, then yes, you won't be learning much. You already know it fries things. So you give XP bonuses for players being stupid (for example, by not bothering to talk to the giant) and penalties when they use effective tactics. Yeah, that really makes sense. That's why, in martial arts, you spar. Because, when training, you need to actually react to actual situations and learn from them. If you know one move that works regardless of the situation, you're not getting better at fighting. You've just discovered a way to not need to learn anything else. In other words, to not gain experience. And thematically, that makes sense. But it makes the XP system encourage types of behavior that should be discouraged, and discourage types of behavior that should be encouraged. As in every other aspect of D&D, thematics and realism should take a distant back seat to making the rules play well.
Slider33 02-03-05, 02:48 PM	I agree with your DM's approach to it, although it has to be used carefully. I don't think he means any harm but the real trick is, to find balance. Lucky rolls are one thing, but one-shotting a whole group of baddies is another. The first time it happens, yeah you should probably get really good xp but after you use the same tactics over and over again what are the PC's actually learning. I'm just re-iterating what most people have already mentioned above. And I second the fact that there is an option for XP being dependant on difficulty. Take this scenario, 6 goblins isn't really all that tough of an encounter right? Throw in the fact that they use heavy cover, traps, tactics, unreachable areas that encounter difficulty just increased by a lot. So, thus being worth more xp. If you do something smart, that makes the encounter easy what was once going to be difficult, also better xp, even if it ended up being easy. What I'm trying to say here, xp is basically discretionary. That's the way I run it in my campaign at least. Depending on the situation, how it's handled, how smart they approach it will all depend on what kind of xp "'bonus" or "penalty" applies. If they don't even break a sweat how can that really be worth as much xp than when they have to be resourceful? And yes, everyone gets lucky but you just have to use discretion. So don't worry too much unless he constantly nerfs all of your xp for no apparent reason.
Thorak 02-03-05, 11:36 PM	You know what, though? If the possibility to talk their way out of the fight existed, that is an external circumstance, in effect prior to the encounter, that made it easier and XP should be less regardless of whether they fought or talked. If the players didn't bother to think and look for a non-combat solution, that's their problem AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR IT. So violence is inherently a worse way to gain experience? That's an odd perspective, for a game inherently based on violence. Besides, I'll just quote directly from the DMG: "An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PC's level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources -- hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on." I'll also note that the entire section on Difficulty (specifically, Difficulty Factors) is exactly what I'm talking about. If your party is walking through encounters of your EL, then your DM hasn't calculated your party's level correctly. As that quoted bit says, an encounter like this should burn 1/5th of the party's resources. If it's consistently not, then the EL is being set too high by the DM, or the party's level is somehow higher than it should be. Either way, less experience is supposed to be awarded. So you give XP bonuses for players being stupid (for example, by not bothering to talk to the giant) and penalties when they use effective tactics. Yeah, that really makes sense. Kindly go back, read the paragraph you're responding to with this, and realize that you need to take remedial reading comprehension classes. I pretty clearly say that intelligent and well-thought out tactics should be rewarded. It's the first bloody line. And I said if they resort to just blowing the snot out of everything with the same trick, they shouldn't be. I fail to see how that in any way implies rewarding stupidity or penalizing effective tactics. I'm pretty sure I said the exact bloody opposite. And thematically, that makes sense. But it makes the XP system encourage types of behavior that should be discouraged, and discourage types of behavior that should be encouraged. As in every other aspect of D&D, thematics and realism should take a distant back seat to making the rules play well. I don't have a sweet clue how you could possibly think this. I am only describing the experience system, as laid out in the DMG. This is how the game is played. It follows the thematic sense as I've laid it out. Perhaps if you actually read my post, and didn't start claiming I said things that are pretty clearly not in there, you'd get my point.
Cold Napalm 02-03-05, 11:51 PM	1) I think te DM is a bloody idiot and I would not play with him if he tried to pull that crap on me. 2) He is the DM so what he says is right. 3) yer option is to either put up with it or go your a bloody idiot, buh bye now.
FreeTheSlaves 02-04-05, 01:32 AM	First off, experience is awarded, it says this in the DMG. Players have no right to demand XP as it is up to the DM to decide how this is handled. Okay at this point, remembering the DMG off the top of my head, it does tell that XP drives the game so this is not something to be mucked with on a whim. I for one always tell my players how it is going to work but I don't deviate far from the recommended system. A sole creature CR (or EL) equal to the party average level (or ECL) should chew up 20% of resources: hps; spells; potions/scrolls; limited abilities... This is not an exact science so we are told to not worry about the frequent deviances up or down as, on average, it should even out. Now onto this situation. It appears the campaign is not having the default 4 encounters before rest so we need to take this into account. The "sudden" feat is ruling supreme due to not effectively running out and is the first choice of action time and again. As a DM, I feel that while the party is depleting their resources, they are able to swiftly overcome what should be appropriate challenges. I would respond in three ways: 1) Half the XP whenever an encounter is overcome by using this "sudden" feat. 2) Allow the wizard to reselect a feat and disallow the "sudden" feat. I feel this feat is ruining your D&D game and creating tension that is only going to increase as the party progresses. 3) Frequently double the # of encounters and let the party feel the pinch of resource depletion.
Tenzhi 02-04-05, 02:17 AM	You gain XP for passing challenges. It does not matter how you pass them whether through combat or other means, whether you use an easy method or a hard method, whether you roll well or not. Effort has nothing to do with how much XP you gain. If that's what you think, you have no concept of what the Challenge Rating means.
Ra-Tiel 02-04-05, 06:37 AM	According to FreeTheSlaves... It appears the campaign is not having the default 4 encounters before rest so we need to take this into account. The "sudden" feat is ruling supreme due to not effectively running out and is the first choice of action time and again. I don't know if this has come up already, but: ERR..WHAT?!?! If you had a psion/wilder in your group who could go through all of his pps he has for the day in a single encounter and blast the enemies to pieces with crystal shard/energy missile/chained maximized energy bolts because you as DM only set up one encounter per day, would you give this player only half xp because "he can defeat his opponents so easy that they're no challenge to him"?! Do you seriously reduce xp for opponents neutralized with dominate, charm, finger of death, slay living, wail of the banshee, destruction, implosion, sleep, banishment, holy word/dictum/chaos hammer/blasphemy,... because "you didn't allow the enemy to fight you back"? :confused: If I understand the topic of this discussion the right way, it seems that the wizard is dominating encounters with sudden maximized/sudden empowered fireballs or similar combos, right? What's the problem? The player has spent two of his feats to do this ONCE per day. Instead he could have gotten "Craft Wonderous Items" and start making all those nice little items we all long for (belts of giant strength, headband of intellect, boots of striding and springing,...), or "Craft Magic Arms and Armor" and equip the group with magic armors and weapons, or... . Just throw two or three (or even the standard four) encounters per day at them. If you just throw one combat at them (and the players know that), it's not the players' fault that they use their resources for best effect. It's the fault of the DM for allowing them to do so. Throw in a dreaded "random encounter" and your wizard will wish he'd saved that "sudden empower" for later. --- And by the way: could anybody please quote the passage of the dmg that says that if you overcome an encounter with putting the resources available to your character to good usage you should be penalized by getting less xp because you didn't take a beating? --- @Tenzhi: I second Stuntman with this: You gain XP for passing challenges. It does not matter how you pass them whether through combat or other means, whether you use an easy method or a hard method, whether you roll well or not. Effort has nothing to do with how much XP you gain. And it seems, that you, Tenzhi, didn't understand the concept of Challenge Ratings. As you might know, there are the ratings easy, average, hard, overwhelming and easy if handled correctly. These ratings are based on the comparison of the group's average level to the challenge/encounter rating, and not on an assumption of how "easy" it might be for the group to overcome the enemy. I don't recall where it says so, but talking your way past a supposed combat encounter should earn you more xp than just "power attack 5". What's more difficult? Blasting the troll with fireball/scorching ray or talk it into letting you pass unharmed? _Ra-Tiel.
RageFire 02-04-05, 06:57 AM	I hate this Whats a Player to Do Forum because noone realizes who cares what other people say DM has final say. Actually the players have the final say - at least in our games. If our group doesn't like what DM is doing, we tell him to change or we walk. Simple and brutally effective :D DM tells the story, nothing more.
Tenzhi 02-04-05, 09:41 AM	And by the way: could anybody please quote the passage of the dmg that says that if you overcome an encounter with putting the resources available to your character to good usage you should be penalized by getting less xp because you didn't take a beating? Pg. 39: "An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all" Other relevant quotes: "A Challenge Rating is a measure of how easy or difficult a monster or trap is to overcome." "As a rule, you probably don't want to hand out a lot of experience for these kinds of [read: non-combat] encounters" "If you feel a certain monster is worth more (or less) than its Monster Manual rating, feel free to change it."
Thorak 02-04-05, 10:16 AM	Not to mention the aforementioned bit on the 20% burn-up rule. And, perhaps the bloody clearest of the lot, again from page 39 of the DMG: "Sometimes the circumstances give the characters' opponents a distinct advantage. Other times, the PCs have an advantage. Adjust the XP awared and the EL depending on how greatly circumstances change the encounter's difficulty." Note that last line I've helpfully bolded. Being able to nuke it apart with a single spell is a circumstance that has greatly reduced the encounter's difficulty. Perhaps if you guys actually read the whole sections on CR, EL, and experience, you'd realize you don't have a leg to stand on. Don't just read the very first bit, read the bits where it talks about changing them, exactly as me and Tenzhi are describing.
Nytmare 02-04-05, 11:17 AM	Do you guys remember this old comic (http://www.pmw.org/nytmare/images/xpcomic.jpg) from Dragon Magazine? Man, that never stops cracking me up.
CuttinCurt 02-04-05, 11:36 AM	What if the group surprises the bad guys, the wizard wins initiative and catches all the bad guys flat-footed? No save to fireball... end of story. Is this in anyway the pc's fault? nope. Do they deserve full xp for the encounter? hmmmm. It is debatable, but if it were me, I would not axe it in half. Let me explain... There are rules in place for a reason. The flat footed rule is one of them. It makes the wizards need to take the improved initiative that much more important and takes away from metamagic/crafting/spell penetration ect... The wizard learned this through experience. (We can debate on player or character later), but any smart mage would realize that a spell that allows a dex save for half damage wants to win initiative in the opening round and catch as many as he can with the big spell to soften them up. Reward the pc's for that. Dont take it away. The dm can do the same thing to the players. It is a two way street. And lastly, just to add this thought to the conversation, what if a wizard invested a feat into craft magical arms and armor, created a javilin of lightning bolt, or a javelin of fireball, for each of his companions, then the one who won initiative threw the one that was most effective against the bad guys... Is this cheapening the experience for the battle? I say no. It is using what you have built your character on and making it work in battle. Full xp should be gained for it. Tactics coming to life and working is learning alot in battle. Full xp is granted then. There are way to many control freaks out there. Lighten up DM's. Its your players fun that is at stake, and you might loose your group over it. Is that worth a few xp? Absolutely not. There are other things that can take away xp in the game. Use that if you feel the need. CC
FreeTheSlaves 02-04-05, 12:05 PM	According to FreeTheSlaves... If you had a psion/wilder in your group who could go through all of his pps he has for the day in a single encounter and blast the enemies to pieces with crystal shard/energy missile/chained maximized energy bolts because you as DM only set up one encounter per day, would you give this player only half xp because "he can defeat his opponents so easy that they're no challenge to him"?! No idea about psionics, I assume that it is similar to a 5th level mage briefly having the damage output of a mage twice his level? I may well do if this was the common no-brainer attack of choice by the said PC, however more likely I wouldn't allow this attack form. The problem is this sudden feat. Ok, first off I don't believe that this sudden feat is well designed at all, in fact it is broken. It allows a character to briefly double the # of spells when the quicken feat has this power come at a steep cost. Put another way, would you expect the party to survive NPC wizards that routinely have these feats? It is a no-brainer feat choice (i.e. poorly designed) and so they'll be firing off two empowered 5d6 fireballs early in the combat. I look at my 5th level Paladin and his 37 hps (average) means he is going down vs this common attack form. I know I would be punching my DM if he blasted my 5th level character with this nonsense. Another point is that D&D combat is supposed to be very tactical - using different methods to succeed. There is supposed to be no one uber tactic that is universally optimal. If the campaign is set up with a smaller # of encounters than the default (which this sounds the case), I would alter the XP system to give greater awards for story and quest success, or accept slower advancement.
FreeTheSlaves 02-04-05, 12:34 PM	Actually the players have the final say - at least in our games. If our group doesn't like what DM is doing, we tell him to change or we walk. Simple and brutally effective :D DM tells the story, nothing more. Wow, you either routinely go through DMs or have one who is pussywhipped? I used to have an adverserial relationship with my players once but we got over it and accepted our roles. The players get to be heroes in a world that I run.
mythandra 02-04-05, 01:07 PM	In a couple of games I have played in the DM has decided that if a fight end too fast and in our favor, that he will cut our experience. Say my parties mage uses both Sudden Empower and Maximize on fireball that utterly slays the foes in one fell swoop. The DM would decide that is not really a challenge and we will only get half of what that encounter was really worth. <snip> Am I being fair here in telling my DM he is wrong or am I just being a whiney player that wants too much? Your DM is following a suggestion in the DMG. You need to roll with this. For challenge rating X, it is expected that a group of four X level characters will use up some set percentage of their resources*. If you complete the encounter while using up far less than that expected percentage of your resources, the challenge rating was not a true CR X compared to your power level. Thusly, you should not gain xp as if you had faced a CR X encounter. I call this rule: "my xp scales with your min-maxing" * - resources like arrows, spells, etc. I do not recall this percentage at the moment.
Thorak 02-04-05, 02:22 PM	CuttinCurt, where are you getting this idea that being surprised means you can't make Reflex saves? It means you're flat-footed, which means you lose your Dex bonus to AC. You can still make Reflex saves, and retain your Dex bonus when doing so. Beyond that, we're into circumstances. The surprise translates into acircumstance in the PCs favor, reducing the encounter level and thus the XP. And then the creatures are weak enough and tightly grouped enough to fall to one spell. Again, circumstances making it easier, meaning a reduction in EL and thus XP. This is entirely by the book. If people read the whole DMG rather than just the bits they wanted to, they'd realize this.
Edymnion 02-04-05, 02:34 PM	In a couple of games I have played in the DM has decided that if a fight end too fast and in our favor, that he will cut our experience. Say my parties mage uses both Sudden Empower and Maximize on fireball that utterly slays the foes in one fell swoop. The DM would decide that is not really a challenge and we will only get half of what that encounter was really worth. Or say I as a fighter scores 3 crits in one round and flays the villian. I think this is totally stupid on the DMs part and have told him so. To me it smacks of DM vs PC and the DM is punishing the party for killing his cherished NPCs without them allowing the DM to show off his monsters. Of course I am happy that he is atleast letting our tricks work with resorting to some BS decision like the moster instantly gains 50 hit points or he teleports away. Am I being fair here in telling my DM he is wrong or am I just being a whiney player that wants too much?I think that you're just being a whiney player, no offence intended. Your DM is right. An encounter of appropriate challenge is supposed to take up ~25% of your resources for that day. Be they spells, hitpoints, magic item charges, whatever. Walking up, casting one spell, and winning is not spending 25% of your resources. If the fight goes too easy, not counting a fluke (like lots of crits), then the CR is simply wrong, and needs to be reduced. And there are times the CRs appear too low, and they nearly wipe the party out. The CR was actually higher than what it appeared to be, so it should be upped for more xp. Now, this doesn't mean the players can intentionally handicap themselves for more xp, or fight stupid. But when they are genuinely trying, and its too hard for them, they deserve more xp. Just like if they walk right over it, they didn't really learn anything, they weren't challenged, they should get less XP.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-04-05, 03:14 PM	Actually the players have the final say - at least in our games. If our group doesn't like what DM is doing, we tell him to change or we walk. Simple and brutally effective :D DM tells the story, nothing more. and the DM can also stop the game if the players get out of control. A game is a consensus. When I play D&D, I gather a few friends to have a fun time enjoying a game we like. If it cease to be fun, we stop. Both sides should treat the other fairly.
Grievemere 02-04-05, 09:42 PM	I knew there was a reason I stopped giving out xp after each encounter! As a DM I got burned by this a long while back and ended up with a major rejig of the whole xp system, much less xp given for beating each individual encounter but more handed out as bonus for creative or good use of player abilities plus a big pay out based on how well a particular sorty was resolved. It works particularly well for campaigns that are less combat orientated than the average. The groups I've gamed with since have all liked it at least as much as the standard system. Ultimately, if your only complaint is that you feel cheated out of some xp I'd live with it, at least your DM is not actively trying to kill you or thwart your groups tactics becuase they are better than planned for.
RageFire 02-05-05, 12:57 AM	and the DM can also stop the game if the players get out of control. A game is a consensus. When I play D&D, I gather a few friends to have a fun time enjoying a game we like. If it cease to be fun, we stop. Both sides should treat the other fairly. No, we have a voting system. For example recently I wanted to play the dreaded Frenzied Berserker, the DM didn't have a problem with that, but players did so I got voted against by players who felt FB's weakness was simply too much to be allowed where the safety of a group rests on a will save - so I said - "Ok guys, I'll be psion then is that ok?" Players: "No problem" Another example: we decide that DM can't touch our wizard's spellbook. Unrealistic? Yes. Cheap? Maybe. More fun for us? Definitly - losing spellbook sucks. Why should the wizard player have less fun? Fair enough we vote to keep the DM from touching his spellbook. Just a small illustration that in our games PLAYERS decide what we like and what we don't. Personally I don't like controlling DMs as we as players don't want to be told how to have fun, where to put our stats etc. If we want an easy adventure, totally crushing everything - we do it. If we want to RP, we do it. If we feel like leveling fast or slow - then we adjust the XP. It all depends on the mood of the players. That's what I love about DnD - freedom to do what you want, not the controlling DM's who thin that party should only be strong enough to kill ants and flies.
Tenzhi 02-05-05, 01:08 AM	Reward the pc's for that. Dont take it away. The dm can do the same thing to the players. It is a two way street. The DM doesn't get any reward for doing it to PCs, so it ain't exactly two-way. And lastly, just to add this thought to the conversation, what if a wizard invested a feat into craft magical arms and armor, created a javilin of lightning bolt, or a javelin of fireball, for each of his companions, then the one who won initiative threw the one that was most effective against the bad guys... Is this cheapening the experience for the battle? That's an example of the cheapening of magic items in 3.x, which is a whole 'nother discussion.
Cold Napalm 02-05-05, 02:31 AM	Basically the OP's DM is punishing players for being 1) smart and tactical or 2) for being lucky and both are REALLY stupid reason for me adjust exp. Now if the party is say level 7 and it was a bunch of level 1 gobs wiped out, I can see no/reduced exp...but he did NOT just use one spell he used one spell AND 2 feats. You have any idea how much resources 2 feats are to a wizard?!? That's probably 20% right there.
Tenzhi 02-05-05, 03:58 AM	You have any idea how much resources 2 feats are to a wizard?!? None. Feats generally don't get used up, they're permanently there and don't have to be replenished. Hence they aren't resources.
Ra-Tiel 02-05-05, 04:59 AM	@Tenzhi: None. Feats generally don't get used up, they're permanently there and don't have to be replenished. Hence they aren't resources. Wrong! Example: exalted feats (I know I'm treading on thin ice, but so be it!). 1 wrong action and some (or even most of your feats) go bye-bye forever! Another example: sudden feats. I repeat myself: they can be used ONCE PER DAY. Once you've used your "sudden maximize" you must wait after you have rested to use it again. Or in other words: you loose access to the feat for the rest of the day. --- And by the way: "An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all" Means: 5 orcs vs level 20 party. It's based on CR vs party level! By using his sudden maximize in one encounter, the wizard spends 100% of his available sudden maximize resources on the encounter! "A Challenge Rating is a measure of how easy or difficult a monster or trap is to overcome." Means: because of the abilities the monster or trap possesses. Why is a Balor CR20 and a Dretch only CR2? Because the Balor's got 290hp, quickened implosion, a vorpal sword, the summon demon ability,... while the Dretch only has only 13hp, stinking cloud and scare. Challenge Rating does in NO WAY encompass the tactics, abilities and items the party might or might not possess. "As a rule, you probably don't want to hand out a lot of experience for these kinds of [read: non-combat] encounters" Err... and what's got "these kinds of [read: non-combat] encounters" to do with reducing xp for blasting an enemy with a sudden maximized fireball? It's meant for encounters like: a city official who doesn't want to cooperate and the party's got little time left, or on a masked ball you stumble across an old enemy and get into a "social fight" with words as weapons and phrases as spells that do not directly harm you. "If you feel a certain monster is worth more (or less) than its Monster Manual rating, feel free to change it." Means: change the challenge rating of the monster/trap to take the circumstances of the encounter into your calculations. But what have all the above to do with my question? To remind you: And by the way: could anybody please quote the passage of the dmg that says that if you overcome an encounter with putting the resources available to your character to good usage you should be penalized by getting less xp because you didn't take a beating? I put in bold print what I wanted to emphazise! Please re-read the question and then try again. --- Just as a sidenote: to you then increase the xp reward if the monster uses any quickened spell-like abilities to stay uniform with your rulings? Do you increase the xp the group gets for a choker because of the choker's quickness? I mean: a 3hd critter with permanent haste? That must be worth more xp according to your ruling because normally no creature with 3hd can cast haste --- Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
prozacman 02-05-05, 05:49 AM	in my personal opinion the multitude of ways to defeat an opponent is included in the CR. Many creature have much higher ratings than others simply because they are smart enough not to be fooled (as in the giant example above) the best example of this is the Difference in CR between the tarrasque and a titan. in a toe to toe fight the tarrasque would doubtlessly win, but because a titan is clever and can use tactics and some magic. however my point is that no matter how you win an encounter you should get the same experience, if you sneak past the giant, blow it to bits with a single spell, or fight it head on.. no matter what, you beat that challenge. that being said, the DM can do as he DM well pleases. I SO want this feat! What are the prerequisites? if i remember correctly the prerequisites for sudden empower and sudden maximise are both having 1 other metamagic feat
FreeTheSlaves 02-05-05, 10:09 AM	Basically the OP's DM is punishing players for being 1) smart and tactical ... There is nothing smart or tactical in choosing the sudden feat which is a no brainer. Heck, it would become the first feat of choice for any sorcerer. It doesn't make sense not to choose it, there is no choice, there is no tactics. It is a poorly designed feat.
Thorak 02-05-05, 04:17 PM	@Tenzhi: Wrong! Example: exalted feats (I know I'm treading on thin ice, but so be it!). 1 wrong action and some (or even most of your feats) go bye-bye forever! Another example: sudden feats. I repeat myself: they can be used ONCE PER DAY. Once you've used your "sudden maximize" you must wait after you have rested to use it again. Or in other words: you loose access to the feat for the rest of the day. Let's ignore the first, because that's an exception to what we're talking about. As for the second; using your Sudden feat will not, by the level you can take it, likely count as 20% of your party's resources, especially since you only lose it for that day. So yes, if you fry a normal-level encounter through surprise and use of a Sudden metamagic feat, you should earn less XP. Or perhaps the Wizard casting it should gain normal XP, and everyone else nada, but that will raise bigger issues. And by the way: Means: 5 orcs vs level 20 party. It's based on CR vs party level! By using his sudden maximize in one encounter, the wizard spends 100% of his available sudden maximize resources on the encounter! It doesn't say anything about relative CR to party level. It just says if the encounter was so easy it used up no resources, you should get no XP. For instance, if all the PCs can naturally Fly, and are using Throwing Returning javelins, and use them to kill a pack of 8 Advanced Feral Dire Bears from 100 feet above, they should get no XP. Even if the CR was several levels higher than the characters. Because it was easy, and used no resources. That's what the sentence says. It doesn't say a darn thing about CR vs party level. Means: because of the abilities the monster or trap possesses. Why is a Balor CR20 and a Dretch only CR2? Because the Balor's got 290hp, quickened implosion, a vorpal sword, the summon demon ability,... while the Dretch only has only 13hp, stinking cloud and scare. Challenge Rating does in NO WAY encompass the tactics, abilities and items the party might or might not possess. You're right. Because those don't affect CR. They very well might affect the Encounter Level though. I suggest you read that section of the DMG. I've already pointed it out once. Means: change the challenge rating of the monster/trap to take the circumstances of the encounter into your calculations. Exactly. CR isn't the be-all and end-all of experience. Circumstances affect the difficulty level, which affects the Encounter Level, which affects the XP. But what have all the above to do with my question? To remind you: I put in bold print what I wanted to emphazise! Please re-read the question and then try again. Please re-read your question, and the parts myself and Tenzhi have quoted, and realize your question has already been answered in spades, though you're making ridiculous assertions that parts of the DMG mean certain specific things when they say nothing of the sort. Just as a sidenote: to you then increase the xp reward if the monster uses any quickened spell-like abilities to stay uniform with your rulings? Do you increase the xp the group gets for a choker because of the choker's quickness? I mean: a 3hd critter with permanent haste? That must be worth more xp according to your ruling because normally no creature with 3hd can cast haste If they're not part of what was assumed when the creature's CR was set up, then yes. Frankly, duh. The MM has a whole section on how to adjust the CR based on improvements to the creature. You also, by the DM, adjust the XP for things like surprise, terrain, etc. A fight with a Roper in an open cavern gets the Roper's normal CR. A fight with a Roper, when the party is almost entirely melee-oriented, when the Roper is 30 feet up stuck to the ceiling and gets surprise on the party, should provide more. Because it's more difficult.
Ra-Tiel 02-05-05, 06:38 PM	@Thorak: Are you really saying that using a spell slot and a 1/day feat isn't using any of your resources? Just to compare: look at the Ring of Elemental Commadn (Fire): From the SRD: Ring of Elemental Command (Fire) Resist energy (fire) (as a major ring of energy resistance [fire]) Burning hands (unlimited use) Flaming sphere (twice per day) Pyrotechnics (twice per day) Wall of fire (once per day) Flame strike (twice per week) I underlined what I want to emphazise. According to your line of argumentation a character who uses the 1/day or 2/week abilities of this item should gain no experience for putting the resources that are available to him to good use because it doesn't really cost him any resources overall. Do you really say so? Now consider that the wizard has spend one of his feats on "sudden maximize". He most likely will never be able to undo his decision no matter how hard he longs for "Quicken Spell" or something. He cannot lay it down and take it up like a ring or other magic item. Should a high level cleric with the sun domain get no xp for devestating a group of vampires with his greater turning ability since he just looses the ability for that day and therefore it doesn't count as an expended resource? In my humble opinion the party should get the same xp for the encounter, no matter the way they defeated it. [...] Do you seriously reduce xp for opponents neutralized with dominate, charm, finger of death, slay living, wail of the banshee, destruction, implosion, sleep, banishment, holy word/dictum/chaos hammer/blasphemy,... because "you didn't allow the enemy to fight you back"? [...] There are so many save-or-die-one-trick-pony spells (compare my quote - and I don't even get in any book besides the phb!) that you'd cut your group's advancement in quarter if you did penalize them for using them: Just killed a group of goblins with sleep and coup de grace? Too easy -> no xp. Slayed the BBEG with finger of death. Too easy -> no xp. Destroyed an undead menace with Undeath to Death? Too easy -> no xp. Annihilated an opponent with Arrow of Bone? Too easy -> no xp. Just blew apart an antagonist with overwhelming hp damage from Horrid Wilting? Too easy -> no xp. ... .. . I just get the impression that the group in question is being ruled down in a one-way direction. If the dm thinks an encounter was too easy: cut xp. But if the encounter was almost a tpk for being to hard it seems they don't get any bonus. And that's just bad dming. And your example with the all melee group vs an enemy they can't reach will most likely result in either a) tpk or b) the party running away from the encounter which equals 0 xp since they didn't overcome it (especially if you consider the INSANE str damage a roper can do! Therefore is a) much more likely than b)! ). Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Thorak 02-05-05, 10:08 PM	I never said it wasn't a resource you were using up. I said it wasn't much of a resource, because it's an innately reuseable one. For instance, I would consider a mage casting Fireball to be less of a "cost" to the character than using a charge of their Wand of Fireballs. Because it will cost the character more to get that charge back, than that spell. That was my only point, that and that a spell slot and a 1/day feat won't be 20% of even the mage's resources, let alone the party's, at least at anything over like 3rd level.
Tenzhi 02-06-05, 12:24 AM	Example: exalted feats (I know I'm treading on thin ice, but so be it!). 1 wrong action and some (or even most of your feats) go bye-bye forever! Another example: sudden feats. I repeat myself: they can be used ONCE PER DAY. Once you've used your "sudden maximize" you must wait after you have rested to use it again. Or in other words: you loose access to the feat for the rest of the day. Odd, I don't recall any "exalted" or "sudden" feats in the core rules.
Nytmare 02-06-05, 12:34 AM	Odd, I don't recall any "exalted" or "sudden" feats in the core rules. It's Complete Arcane stuff.
Tenzhi 02-06-05, 04:09 AM	It's Complete Arcane stuff. And therefore not part of the core rules.
Ra-Tiel 02-06-05, 04:20 AM	@Tenzhi: Ok, if you don't like the sudden feats, then take a look at the "metamagic rods". They are core (for your reference: dmg p.234f). The same argumentation applies to them, doesn't it? They are, overall, "3/day sudden metamagic feats you don't have to waste a feat slot on to get". You do cut xp from opponents the party wiz defeats while using a metamagic rod, do you? _Ra-Tiel.
Thorak 02-06-05, 03:07 PM	@Tenzhi: Ok, if you don't like the sudden feats, then take a look at the "metamagic rods". They are core (for your reference: dmg p.234f). The same argumentation applies to them, doesn't it? They are, overall, "3/day sudden metamagic feats you don't have to waste a feat slot on to get". You do cut xp from opponents the party wiz defeats while using a metamagic rod, do you? _Ra-Tiel. Depends. If the party wiz defeats the enemy with a single spell and by using the rod, then yes. Like I would if the party thief snuck up and killed the one enemy with a single sneak attack, or if the party cleric summoned something nasty from a long way away that chewed them up, etc, etc. It has to do with how much effort it took, in other words, close to nil. I wouldn't cut it just for using it, if the party continued to get beat on and used up a great deal of other stuff, like getting hurt and using more spells. Because that's putting out the suggested effort. I repeat what I said earlier, what, exactly, is the party learning from watching the mage fry the enemy with a single spell? Not a whole heck of a lot.
Alcari Ambaron 02-06-05, 04:37 PM	I'd say it's up to the DM in the end. IMHO it should be based on effort, but lucky dice rolls or strategy should not be taken into account. An example: instead of fighting a hill giant (cr 7) for passage, you both agree to a game of chess. Beating a hill giant is not harder (10 wis/int) then beating an averange human. So less effort is required, less is learned, less XP is given. (XP for a lower CR + some bonus XP for a creative solution). odds are, your players will be happy for recieving the bonus xp. Once more agreeing with Thorak (i find myself doing that a lot lately) If the party Cleric stands on a hill, summoning stuff to fight a scary monster down in a valley I'd cut the XP down to nearly nothing, that would be like just standing in your room and summoning them....you dont learn anything from that, just like you dont learn a language by constantly repeating the same sentance. More examples: 2 similar thieves (A & B) backstab a monster. Thief A backatabs a goblin, killing him in a single hit. Thief B backstabs an Owlbear, killing him in a single hit. Why should Thief B get more XP than Thief A??? niether of them became a lot wiser from this. Example 3 2 similar wizards fight a monster Wizard A uses his (metamagic wand/ sudden feat) beefed up spell to instantly kill an umber hulk. Wizard B fights the umber hulk without any beefed-up-edness, and kills it after 6 or 7 spells. In this scenario, Wizard B learned somthing about about Monsters (how they move, how they react, what they're weakness is). While Wizard A learned Umber hulks burn when hit with a fireball.... Now, is it so strange to give Wizard B more XP ????
Shard of Suzail 02-06-05, 05:19 PM	It`s well worth remembering that there is a prestige class dedicated to the cleric who summons beasts and sends them forth to fight his foes, the Thaumaturgist. Thus the cleric in the example should get the experience he is entitled to. A lot of the time, my cleric sent skeletons forth to beat on her foes and i didnt even have to summon those each battle as a thaumaturgist usually does. When i first made comment on this issue, i recommended that folks ignore the means by which a challenge is overcome. Defeating the hill giant is the challenge and how the pc`s do that is up to them. If they make it easy by luck, cleverness or sheer power, then so be it. It is best not to look too deeply into the xp award system, i feel. If you do, then you have to deal with issues such as giving xp for simply researching and using spells, or by developing new combat styles and tactics. You even have the favourite bugbear of getting xp for creating magic items. Then you get the strange question of hoe much a character should be involved in a challenge in order to qualify for getting xp at all. There will be some games where a player may not be able to get involved, or where his particular specialism is only used once, whereas the fighters of the party seem to be at risk constantly. The best way to do it is by the scenario or by time. If you start looking at each individual incident you run the risk of having to give out xp all over the place, be it for the party ranger keeping his eyes open as the party walks from A to B or for the party bard tuning up his lute every morning, day in, day out and greeting the sun with a song of the party's current deeds. Ideally, pretty much everything gives out "experience" if you think about it. Thus it is best to keep xp as a set of waypoints that mark the party's movement along a scale between low and high power levels. The scale is very big and, in many ways, the actions of the characters do little to affect it. Even failure to complete a challenge is a cause of argument, for, after all, we learn the most from our failures and the least from constant and easy success. Though, of course, "practice makes perfect". Which is why, these days, i just give out a fixed chunk each session, maybe with a slight adjustment based on how well i feel the party acted like a party and not as individuals. I think the most important part of it all is player based, not character based. Did the party work well as a team? Did the player actually make an effort? On some occasions i have given out xp purely because a lot of time passed between scenarios and it seemed right that the party would refine their skills in that time or learn a few things about themselves or their craft. Overall, the more abstract it is, the less argument it provokes.
Ra-Tiel 02-06-05, 05:32 PM	[...] instead of fighting a hill giant (cr 7) for passage, you both agree to a game of chess. Beating a hill giant is not harder (10 wis/int) then beating an averange human. So less effort is required, less is learned, less XP is given. (XP for a lower CR + some bonus XP for a creative solution). odds are, your players will be happy for recieving the bonus xp. [...] Err.. I must disagree! To get the hill giant to the point that he agrees to duke it out by match of chess is much more difficult than smacking him with a greatsword. Therefore that solution should earn the players more xp than just beating the snot out of the giant. And "less is learned"? You learned how to talk down a hill giant while convincing him to play chess with you instead of clubbing you with that tree. I'd say that was more teaching than "hitting something with my greatsword - take 317/1". --- [...] Once more agreeing with Thorak (i find myself doing that a lot lately) If the party Cleric stands on a hill, summoning stuff to fight a scary monster down in a valley I'd cut the XP down to nearly nothing, that would be like just standing in your room and summoning them....you dont learn anything from that, just like you dont learn a language by constantly repeating the same sentance. [...] Sorry, I really don't want to insult anyone, but that's just stupid dming. Why doesn't the scary monster use its own ranged attacks on the cleric or closes to melee to rip him to pieces? As I've said earlier in my post: if the dm lets the group get away with only 1 encounter per day it his own fault. The players know they can use every resource they have because there won't come any additional challenges their way for the rest of the day. The summoning spells from your "cleric on hill and casting" example are cure spells the cleric will be missing in the second encounter that day. --- [...] More examples: 2 similar thieves (A & B) backstab a monster. Thief A backatabs a goblin, killing him in a single hit. Thief B backstabs an Owlbear, killing him in a single hit. [...] I don't understand your argument. Why should a character being ***PUNISHED*** for using his class abilities? With such a dm, why should anyone ever be interested in playing anything beside fighter/barbarian? You get ***PUNISHED*** for using your class ability? If you cut xp for opponents killed with sneak attack, then you must cut xp for enemies killed with smite evil, favored enemy, turning, eldritch blast, and oh, of course: if the fighter has a bull's strength spell or item active he should get also cut xp because he didn't really defeat the enemy himself. Then you must also cut xp for all enemies killed by critical hits, save-or-die (or save-or-insane-damage) spells, creative use of the battlefield (like bull-rushing an opponent off a cliff) and special class abilities like the Arcane Archer's Arrow of Death. And additionally (deducted from your cleric example above): if you kill enemies from a distance you can barely count their eyes (long range spells, composite bows,...) or by indirect means (like grabbing them with telekinesis and drowing them in a lake) you get also reduced xp. As I said above: I don't understand your argument/example: Thief A sneak attacks a goblin, killing him instantly. Thief B sneak attacks a balor with his +5 evil outsider bane holy sacred shortsword, killing him instantly (I know, I'm exaggerating - but for the sake of argument). Err.. should Thief B get no xp for singlehandedly killing a Balor? --- [...] Example 3 2 similar wizards fight a monster Wizard A uses his (metamagic wand/ sudden feat) beefed up spell to instantly kill an umber hulk. Wizard B fights the umber hulk without any beefed-up-edness, and kills it after 6 or 7 spells. In this scenario, Wizard B learned somthing about about Monsters (how they move, how they react, what they're weakness is). While Wizard A learned Umber hulks burn when hit with a fireball.... Now, is it so strange to give Wizard B more XP ???? [...] Hmm.. the same as above: you must differentiate what spells Wizard A used. If he just did MirrorImageScorchingRayScorchingRayScorc hingRayScorchingRayScorchingRay until the umber hulk was dead then he should get no xp, too! If he went stone skin and enlarge person and grappeled the umber hulk to death, then he should get slightly more xp than normal. But no matter what spells he used, he should receive full normal xp anyway in my opinion. Because what's then the point of those level8+9 damaging spells if you get less xp for using them? Instead of allowing an encounter to be overcome quickly, most players would sit back, pull out their trusty magic missile and allow the chance of pc fatality to increase with every passing combat round just to get not shafted when it comes to xp rewards. --- I really don't want to insult anyone or start a flame war, but what's up with you guys? Why do you want to cut at your players' characters' experience points? Don't you like your players? Why elso do want to take the fun away from the game for them? Seeing your character to gain levels and improve is the most interesting part of the game. Why do want to cut that part in quarter? Sorry if I offended anybody. I didn't mean to do so, but I can't stand "tweaking the rules just for the sake of tweaking them". Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Ra-Tiel 02-06-05, 05:38 PM	@Shard of Suzail: [...] Defeating the hill giant is the challenge and how the pc`s do that is up to them. If they make it easy by luck, cleverness or sheer power, then so be it. [...] Exactly my point. Thank you very much! I can only second everything you've said. And what you've said about getting involved: :clap: :clap: _Ra-Tiel.
yeloson 02-06-05, 06:00 PM	Hi, I have to weigh in on the side of keeping the xp the same, regardless of what the party does. If you can convince a hill giant to play a game of chess, which first entails something like a DC 40-50 roll to turn a hostile party into a one willing to settle by fair means, and then beat him at chess, you get the reward. The DMG pretty much says as a DM, you up the reward or down it if you, yourself, have set up the encounter one way or the other in someone's favor. So, if I have designed an encounter to be easier for the players, perhaps by giving stupid tactics to the foes, or other advantages, then yeah, you get less XP("Hey, all the orcs are drunk, and its daytime!"). If (and this happens often), I design the encounter to be tougher, you get more xp, even if you come up with a ingenious way to completely overcome my encounter("Oh, well, we just do THIS!" "Oh. Well, I guess that's that. On to the next one...") The thing is, players have limited resources in terms of their characters and their abilities, and I, as a DM, happen to have access to all that info. If I don't pay attention to that, and make poor encounters(too easy OR too tough) that's MY fault, not the players. I can pull anything from the book, modify anything I think of before I say it out loud, and adjust encounters on the fly("Hmm, I think I should only send 2 Rust Monsters..."). If the players get lucky, or clever, then they get lucky or clever. It doesn't make sense to penalize people for smart tactics and good luck and ALSO penalize them for dumb tactics and bad luck(by having their characters get hurt or killed). Chris
Thorak 02-07-05, 12:20 AM	Sorry, I really don't want to insult anyone, but that's just stupid dming. Why doesn't the scary monster use its own ranged attacks on the cleric or closes to melee to rip him to pieces? As I've said earlier in my post: if the dm lets the group get away with only 1 encounter per day it his own fault. The players know they can use every resource they have because there won't come any additional challenges their way for the rest of the day. The summoning spells from your "cleric on hill and casting" example are cure spells the cleric will be missing in the second encounter that day. I agree here. Because the cleric is using up all kinds of resources. If he were hiding, and used one spell to set a critter with a DR he knew nothing in the orc encampment could penetrate, and it tore the place apart, then no, he shouldn't get much, if any, XP. Because one spell does not a significant cost make. I don't understand your argument. Why should a character being ***PUNISHED*** for using his class abilities? With such a dm, why should anyone ever be interested in playing anything beside fighter/barbarian? You get ***PUNISHED*** for using your class ability? If you cut xp for opponents killed with sneak attack, then you must cut xp for enemies killed with smite evil, favored enemy, turning, eldritch blast, and oh, of course: if the fighter has a bull's strength spell or item active he should get also cut xp because he didn't really defeat the enemy himself. Stop saying "punished". Nobody's punishing anyone. Reducing XP is not rewarding them as much. Saying it's punishment is like saying that winning 50 bucks on a lottery ticket is a loss, because you didn't win the million. This isn't about using class abilities. This is about getting through an encounter with little to no risk or effort. As I said above: I don't understand your argument/example: Thief A sneak attacks a goblin, killing him instantly. Thief B sneak attacks a balor with his +5 evil outsider bane holy sacred shortsword, killing him instantly (I know, I'm exaggerating - but for the sake of argument). Err.. should Thief B get no xp for singlehandedly killing a Balor? Uh huh. He didn't learn a darn thing except that Balor die just as easy to sneak attacks as goblins. He didn't fight it. To turn your example on it's ear, suppose thief B is given a scroll with the words "To kill Ab'zaskal'kion, an evil Balor, recite the following words: Purple Monkey Dishwasher" on it, should he get the experience for killing the Balor, even though the Balor is on another plane minding his own business, and all the thief is doing is reading a piece of paper out loud? I'm exaggerating too, obviously. But your argument frankly doesn't make sense. It flies in the face of what "experience" means. Hmm.. the same as above: you must differentiate what spells Wizard A used. If he just did MirrorImageScorchingRayScorchingRayScorc hingRayScorchingRayScorchingRay until the umber hulk was dead then he should get no xp, too! If he went stone skin and enlarge person and grappeled the umber hulk to death, then he should get slightly more xp than normal. But no matter what spells he used, he should receive full normal xp anyway in my opinion. Depends. Is he sitting on a ledge while they're stuck down below? Why should he get experience for killing fish in a barrel? Or, to again turn your example on it's ear, what if the mage happens upon a chamber full of permanently paralyzed umber hulks? Should he get full XP just for walking along, coup de gracing each one? Because what's then the point of those level8+9 damaging spells if you get less xp for using them? Instead of allowing an encounter to be overcome quickly, most players would sit back, pull out their trusty magic missile and allow the chance of pc fatality to increase with every passing combat round just to get not shafted when it comes to xp rewards. The point of them is that, by the level you get them, you'll need them to survive encounters. If you can nuke an encounter with a single spell, you shouldn't get much XP. I really don't want to insult anyone or start a flame war, but what's up with you guys? Why do you want to cut at your players' characters' experience points? Don't you like your players? Why elso do want to take the fun away from the game for them? Seeing your character to gain levels and improve is the most interesting part of the game. Why do want to cut that part in quarter? Sorry if I offended anybody. I didn't mean to do so, but I can't stand "tweaking the rules just for the sake of tweaking them". Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel. We're not tweaking rules. We're following the XP rules as set out in the DMG. I've said it before, I'll say it again; before you start saying we're "tweaking the rules", kindly go read the rules. If the DM's doing his job, a properly designed encounter will sufficiently test the players to cost them the proper amount of resources. These rules exist so that, if the players find an exploit, they don't suddenly shoot up in level at absolutely no risk or cost. If your mage found a level 1 spell called "ultimate ending", which instantly and with no save killed all potentially hostile creatures within a 42 mile radius, and cast it every 42 miles, should he get all the experience that totals? No. Experience is earned in measure with effort, not results.
Cold Napalm 02-07-05, 01:09 AM	None. Feats generally don't get used up, they're permanently there and don't have to be replenished. Hence they aren't resources. Umm by that reasoning so are spells right? Sudden feats NEED to be replenished...once per day...it's a resource JUST like spells.
Cold Napalm 02-07-05, 01:12 AM	There is nothing smart or tactical in choosing the sudden feat which is a no brainer. Heck, it would become the first feat of choice for any sorcerer. It doesn't make sense not to choose it, there is no choice, there is no tactics. It is a poorly designed feat. Umm right...actually I'd NEVER pick a sudden feat for a sorcerer...wizard...maybe. Sorcerer would get SOOOOO much more out of regular metamagic that it's not even funny. Poorly designed...yep I'd agree with that...and broken because it's so WEAK.
Ra-Tiel 02-07-05, 01:35 AM	@Thorak: [...] If he were hiding, and used one spell to set a critter with a DR he knew nothing in the orc encampment could penetrate, and it tore the place apart, then no, he shouldn't get much, if any, XP. Because one spell does not a significant cost make. [...] Then I didn't want to play a rogue in any of your games, even if I had the opportunity. I guess you think that a single crossbow bolt isn't that much of an expended resource either and theirfore I won't get that much xp as I'm supposed to get according to the rules because I do what I'm supposed to do according to the rules (to name it: hiding and sneak attacking!). --- [... ]This isn't about using class abilities. [...] Ahem! Of course it is about using class abilities! Saying this is like demanding that a fighter must defeat an opponent without using his BAB or bonus feats, because that are the fighter's class abilities. You say that because the heroes use their class abilities (who are assumed to be owned and used in an encounter by the level-vs-CR xp-system) they shuold get less experience because their abilities make the fight easier? --- [...] Nobody's punishing anyone. Reducing XP is not rewarding them as much. [...] Yes, the dm is punishing the players. He reduces their xp rewards because he feels "Oh damn it! My monster didn't smack the rogue to pieces and the wizard used only a single spell! That was much too easy because the players used the abilities their characters are supposed to use and therefore I will reduce their rewards!" --- [...] Uh huh. He didn't learn a darn thing except that Balor die just as easy to sneak attacks as goblins. He didn't fight it. [...] Err, learning that one of the most powerful beings in existence, a might infernal lord of the Tanar'Ri, is vulnerable to mortal means is "not learning a darn thing"? And according to you sneak attacking is not fighting somebody? Then why the heck do I have to make an attack roll? --- [...] Or, to again turn your example on it's ear, what if the mage happens upon a chamber full of permanently paralyzed umber hulks? Should he get full XP just for walking along, coup de gracing each one? [...] If the wizard was the one who permanently paralyzed the gang of umber hulks, then yes: he should get full xp because it is his accomplishment! --- [...] The point of them is that, by the level you get them, you'll need them to survive encounters. If you can nuke an encounter with a single spell, you shouldn't get much XP. [...] You contradict yourself right there. On the one hand you say that the casters need their high level spells just to survive, but on the other hand you say that they (the high level spells) are so powerful that the characters should get no or little xp for using them. What is it now? Please explain that to me. --- [...] We're not tweaking rules. We're following the XP rules as set out in the DMG. I've said it before, I'll say it again; before you start saying we're "tweaking the rules", kindly go read the rules. If the DM's doing his job, a properly designed encounter will sufficiently test the players to cost them the proper amount of resources. These rules exist so that, if the players find an exploit, they don't suddenly shoot up in level at absolutely no risk or cost. If your mage found a level 1 spell called "ultimate ending", which instantly and with no save killed all potentially hostile creatures within a 42 mile radius, and cast it every 42 miles, should he get all the experience that totals? No. Experience is earned in measure with effort, not results. [...] First of all, I dare to say that I know the rules quite well. Thank you. Second, I might kindly point you to the spell "Apocalypse from the Sky" in BoVD: level 9, 10d6 damage, radius: 10miles/caster level. It has some darn heavy components (some insane ability damage for example), but otherwise it's quite "good". And yes, the evil wizard should get full xp for everything he kills with this spell but that won't be much as most of his victims will be much lower in level. Therefore the selfbalancing of the xp system holds it together. --- Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
FreeTheSlaves 02-07-05, 01:51 AM	I am more concerned that a single feat (and I say a single feat because having to take metamagic feats as prerequisites is not a disadvantage) can allow a 5th level character to dish out damage just short of a 7th level character. Consider a 7th level Wizard with the empower feat, he can hurl a fireball or empower a scorching ray. Fireball: 7d6 = 24.5 Scorching ray: 2*rays each doing (4d6)*1.5 = 42 if both hit Total: 24.5 or 12.25 (saved for half) 42 or 21 (one usually hits unless firing into melee and/or with cover) Then we have our 5th level wizard with the sudden, empower & maximize feats. Fireball: 30 maximized + (5d6*.5) Total: 38.75 or 19.375 (saved for half) This is comparable damage and yet the DMG tells us that a character's power is supposed to double every 2 levels. It just makes a character offense heavy relative to their level and appropriate challenges are thus easily despatched (assuming the party protects the Wizard well, which is the norm). Once the NPC wizards start using this feat regularly I can just see PC's getting blasted and players rioting. Considering that Wizards know that getting the early spells off can decide their fortunes, why would they not opt to pack as much power as quickly as possible? Choosing this feat is a no brainer.
FreeTheSlaves 02-07-05, 01:57 AM	Umm right...actually I'd NEVER pick a sudden feat for a sorcerer...wizard...maybe. Do you enjoy suboptimal characters? If this feat existed in my campaign, every sorcerer & wizard would take it and take it early.
Snommelp 02-07-05, 02:00 AM	Then I didn't want to play a rogue in any of your games, even if I had the opportunity. I guess you think that a single crossbow bolt isn't that much of an expended resource either and theirfore I won't get that much xp as I'm supposed to get according to the rules because I do what I'm supposed to do according to the rules (to name it: hiding and sneak attacking!). If a rogue finishes an entire encounter with a single sneak-attack crossbow shot, either the encounter was too easy or the rogue got extremely lucky. Since we're not debating luck, the easy encounter should give less XP. Yes, the dm is punishing the players. He reduces their xp rewards because he feels "Oh damn it! My monster didn't smack the rogue to pieces and the wizard used only a single spell! That was much too easy because the players used the abilities their characters are supposed to use and therefore I will reduce their rewards!" Ah... the old "take an argument out of context" approach. Very good, since you effectively ignore the meat of Thorak's argument (presumably because you have no response). If the wizard was the one who permanently paralyzed the gang of umber hulks, then yes: he should get full xp because it is his accomplishment! Once again, taken out of context. The wizard in Thorak's example was most obviously not the one who paralyzed all of the enemies, or else the point would be moot. You contradict yourself right there. On the one hand you say that the casters need their high level spells just to survive, but on the other hand you say that they (the high level spells) are so powerful that the characters should get no or little xp for using them. What is it now? Please explain that to me. Just like with the rogue's sneak attack, one Save or Die spell ending an encounter indicates either an easy encounter or a lucky roll. If it is an easy encounter, XP should be lessened. First of all, I dare to say that I know the rules quite well. Thank you. Second, I might kindly point you to the spell "Apocalypse from the Sky" in BoVD: level 9, 10d6 damage, radius: 10miles/caster level. It has some darn heavy components (some insane ability damage for example), but otherwise it's quite "good". And yes, the evil wizard should get full xp for everything he kills with this spell but that won't be much as most of his victims will be much lower in level. Therefore the selfbalancing of the xp system holds it together. This is more an argument for why a DM wouldn't want to allow the BoVD.
Cold Napalm 02-07-05, 02:19 AM	Do you enjoy suboptimal characters? If this feat existed in my campaign, every sorcerer & wizard would take it and take it early. Umm NO, you'd takes these feats if you liked suboptimal characters. You get WAY more ussage out of regular meta magic at higher level then the one shoters. But if you want power at LOW level in exchange for power at high level...seems balanced to me. I build for high level power personally. These feats exists in all campaigns I play in and DM...I have seen it take ONCE and even then the player wanted to ditch them after the 5th session for regular versions.
Cold Napalm 02-07-05, 02:23 AM	I am more concerned that a single feat (and I say a single feat because having to take metamagic feats as prerequisites is not a disadvantage) can allow a 5th level character to dish out damage just short of a 7th level character. Consider a 7th level Wizard with the empower feat, he can hurl a fireball or empower a scorching ray. Fireball: 7d6 = 24.5 Scorching ray: 2*rays each doing (4d6)*1.5 = 42 if both hit Total: 24.5 or 12.25 (saved for half) 42 or 21 (one usually hits unless firing into melee and/or with cover) Then we have our 5th level wizard with the sudden, empower & maximize feats. Fireball: 30 maximized + (5d6*.5) Total: 38.75 or 19.375 (saved for half) This is comparable damage and yet the DMG tells us that a character's power is supposed to double every 2 levels. It just makes a character offense heavy relative to their level and appropriate challenges are thus easily despatched (assuming the party protects the Wizard well, which is the norm). Once the NPC wizards start using this feat regularly I can just see PC's getting blasted and players rioting. Considering that Wizards know that getting the early spells off can decide their fortunes, why would they not opt to pack as much power as quickly as possible? Choosing this feat is a no brainer. Umm one trouble with that example...you now that sorching ray has NO SAVE right? So it's 42 ALL the time...seems twice as powerful as that 5th leveler to me.
Ra-Tiel 02-07-05, 03:10 AM	@Snommelp: If a rogue finishes an entire encounter with a single sneak-attack crossbow shot, either the encounter was too easy or the rogue got extremely lucky. Since we're not debating luck, the easy encounter should give less XP. If your rogue can kill the whole (single monster) encounter with one sneak attack then almost definitively the moster was of a lower CR than the character's level and so the rogue already receives less xp for defeating it. There's absolutely no reason to further cut his xp rewards. [------] Ah... the old "take an argument out of context" approach. Very good, since you effectively ignore the meat of Thorak's argument (presumably because you have no response). AHEM!! Are you trying to get me started on this? If you have nothing with sense to add, please be quiet! For your reference: Thorak's post I quoted: [...] Stop saying "punished". Nobody's punishing anyone. Reducing XP is not rewarding them as much. Saying it's punishment is like saying that winning 50 bucks on a lottery ticket is a loss, because you didn't win the million. This isn't about using class abilities. This is about getting through an encounter with little to no risk or effort. [...] Please answer: why is my quote "out of context"? I've cut he lottery example and that was it! And by the way: the characters are supposed to use their best spells, their best feats, their best weapons and their best tactics to overcome a challenge! Not giving xp to a wizard who kills the encounter with a save-or-die spell is like not giving xp to a fighter because he didn't use a normal non-magical non-masterwork weapon! Class abilities are designed to make some encounters easy! And *that* is really the meat of dnd! TripleF's original post: In a couple of games I have played in the DM has decided that if a fight end too fast and in our favor, that he will cut our experience. Say my parties mage uses both Sudden Empower and Maximize on fireball that utterly slays the foes in one fell swoop. The DM would decide that is not really a challenge and we will only get half of what that encounter was really worth. Or say I as a fighter scores 3 crits in one round and flays the villian. [...] Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the dm cuts the players' xp rewards because he feels the encounter was too easy (pay attention to "The DM would decide..."). The wizard used a spell, opponent failed its save and died, or fighter did 3 critical hits in the round. He's rule-0-ing xp rewards down despite that the party should get full xp according to the raw! A dm thinking "a monster that does no damage is a monster they won't get xp for" hasn't really read the dmg. An encounter needn't drop 2/3 of the party below 0 to yield a reward! [------] [...] Once again, taken out of context. The wizard in Thorak's example was most obviously not the one who paralyzed all of the enemies, or else the point would be moot. [...] For your reference: my post: If the wizard was the one who permanently paralyzed the gang of umber hulks, then yes: he should get full xp because it is his accomplishment! from Dictionary.com: if In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do? On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid. No comment on that! [------] Just like with the rogue's sneak attack, one Save or Die spell ending an encounter indicates either an easy encounter or a lucky roll. If it is an easy encounter, XP should be lessened. If it really is an easy encounter, just give xp by the book because the dmg already takes the level difference (and therefore ease of overcoming the encounter) into consideration. There's no reason as a dm to rule the xp rewards down a second time. But what if the encounter was the right EL, but the wizard used a fort-save-or-die spell on a creature with a low fort save? I'd really to hear your take on that. [------] This is more an argument for why a DM wouldn't want to allow the BoVD. Then insert "Wail of the Banshee" or "Transmute Rock to Lava" or "Summon Elemental Monolith" or "Sphere of Ultimate Destruction" or "Greater Dragon Ally" or "Fimbulwinter" or "Iceberg" or... [------] And I still have my opinion that if (and from what I've read in TripleF's posts it seems to be so) the dm ad hoc reduces xp reward for an already lower level encounter, he *is* tweaking the rules in the dmg. Either you give xp by the book or the players know from the start you tak an ad hoc approach to xp rewards. But reducing the EL and reducing the final reward is bad dming! :nonono: [------] And as ColdNapalm has pointed out: the question "sudden metamagic or normal metamagic" is the question of "power now or power later". I've also already posted that the wizard will be stuck with "sudden empower" for the rest of his life, and possible won't be able to take some nice metamagic feat from a future supplement that he'd be longing for. But the fact that the "sudden" feats appear in an official supplement and not in a third party publishing suggests that the people at WotC already consider some casters to have them when they design new monsters/npcs/traps. One cannot argument with "but they are SOOO broken"; the cleric and druid are also in official books. Hmm...? [------] Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Snommelp 02-07-05, 03:27 AM	Ah yes, you must forgive me, but in the excitement of the debate I completely forgot the original post and began dealing with generalities. As for responses: 1) At this point you and I completely agree about the Sneak Attack example. I misread your point (not hard for me to do, since I was half-asleep from driving all day). 2) The lottery example is very important to the argument. By cutting it, you are effectively trying to turn Thorak's argument into less than it is in order to deal with it. Without the context of the lottery example, Thorak has little to stand on; with it, his argument makes a good point. 3) What Dictionary.reference.com fails to note is how powerful that "If" can be. When used correctly, it makes an "ok" argument seem supreme to the opposition. Also, from context (there I go using that word again!), your use of if implies that it is only logical that the wizard was the one responsible for the paralysis effect. 4) A Wizard gets save-or-dies (including fortitude based) as what, level 8 or 9 spells? At that point, there are few creatures who do not have at least even odds of making the save. If the DM throws nothing but those encounters at the party, it's his own fault that the encounters are a cake-walk. 5) Official supplements are not always as well-balanced as one would like, and I have seen instances of shoddy work myself (but only 3.0, as I have just recently switched to 3.5)*. There are also supplemental rules that are innocent enough, until mixed with other official supplemental rules, at which point something overpowering can happen. That's why the DMs in my group test everything personally before allowing or disallowing it. They are a bit paranoid, though, and playtest Core things for themselves as well. *This is not to say that I believe the Sudden feats to be overpowered. I can't say, because I haven't seen them in action.
ShadowDragon8685 02-07-05, 04:04 AM	Ra-Tiel, you are entirely correct. Thorak, allow me to congratulate you on inventing the game of Diablo and Dragons. Where everyone is a high-level Barbarian/Fighter, because it pays to be a big slab of beef where you can hack all day and get XP, but not to be a wizard, because the DM ****s you out of your XP for using your class powers. That's what you've made. Diablo and Dragons. Forget tactics, forget any kind of roleplaying, forget skills and forget class abilities. Forget Sneak Attacking, forget spells, just grab your two swords of uberslaying and go quisanart on the monsters, day in and day out, because that's apparently working for your XP, whereas bending reality to your very will for the express purpose of turning the monsters into a fine paste apparently is too easy.
FreeTheSlaves 02-07-05, 04:23 AM	Umm one trouble with that example...you now that sorching ray has NO SAVE right? So it's 42 ALL the time...seems twice as powerful as that 5th leveler to me. Except for: the short range; hits only one foe; possible penalties of firing into melee (-4Att) or cover (+4AC); and two possibilities of missing especially vs high dex foes. My sorcerer didn't hit all the time and when I resorted to scorching ray I knew I had to escape from charge distance (AC12).
Dunelord 02-07-05, 04:34 AM	In a couple of games I have played in the DM has decided that if a fight end too fast and in our favor, that he will cut our experience. I do this as a DM and thinks it's fair BUT if a fight goes really bad (shoe is on the other foot) for PCs I'll give them extra XP so I would say the too balance out. Maybe you could see if he would be okay with giving you extra XP when a fight that should be easy is really hard. At the same time if its the PCs fault then that's just up to them. One exsample I was useing creatures that where a little tough for them BUT had a very big weakness. Instead of reading a book that was labal as the journal of the man who built the dugeon they where in they just chared in for a total party kill. I veiw that as their fault not mine, and if they had lived I wouldn't have gave them any XP except for the bonus XP I give for a party's first major mess up. Yes that might seem to encourage something bad BUT it has to be pretty bad before they get that.
FreeTheSlaves 02-07-05, 04:41 AM	You get WAY more ussage out of regular meta magic at higher level then the one shoters. But if you want power at LOW level in exchange for power at high level...seems balanced to me. I build for high level power personally. Well I agree that metamagic become more powerful at higher level but unless there is some limitation beyond the 1*day & meta prereq, I would aim towards this in the later lower levels. I would probably take this feat at 6th as a wizard. At 5th level I would have taken the empower feat, so as to only have the 1 "dead" level. But still my biggest issue is the early boost in damage for the dedicated caster. It will kill things with relative ease and that'll annoy the cr@p out of the DM for 2+1 reasons: 1) He can't use this cheese on the PC's because it'll risk killing them above the CR's expected lethality. 2) He won't bother to stat up custom foes in detail because they'll get killed too swiftly. +1) In this case, the DM is forced to change his style towards greater # of encounters a day to highlight the drawbacks with this feat. Not many DMs like having their campaign's flow dictated to them by the players. It is not wise to annoy the guy who spends 3 hours preparing before each session because they might get grumpy... and do something like reduce the XP.
Ra-Tiel 02-07-05, 09:23 AM	First of all, I must apologize. I've just reread my post and noticed that it sounds quite harsh and p****d off. I didn't want to be rude or seem to be so. I guess that's the consequence of posting after 3.5h of sleep when you should have left for university 20min ago. Sorry about that. Now back to the discussion: 1.) With my post "If the wizard [...]" I meant: the wizard should get full xp for coup-de-gracing the umber hulks if it was he who paralyzed them. If they are just standing around because they had a recent date with a lich or a swarm of ghouls, then maybe the wizard should get less xp, for it wasn't him who overcame the challenge (disabling the umber hulks). In the latter case I guess a Diablo2 battle.net player would call that behaviour "leeching". 2.) The example with the lottery is quite risky. If you got just some computer generated random tip for 2.5€ than you're lucky with winning 50€. But if you bought a system tip for say 75€ and win only 50€, then you're probably quite upset. It depends on the situation. A wizard might be great with a 1/day sudden maximized fireball against orcs/goblins/hobgoblins/ogres/... But what if he encounters fire elementals/devils/salamander/efreeti/...? You can bet he'll wish he had taken "energy substitution" instead of "sudden maximize". And "sudden quicken" has so many prerequisites that abuse is almost out of question. Only very high level caster could get that feat without compromising their versatility. So I don't think the "sudden" feats are really broken or that horrible. 3.) Of course a dm cannot use caster with "sudden" feats regularily on the party. Can a dm use the Draconomicon or Libris Mortis for full effect on the group? Well, he can do that of course, but only if he prefers a tpk once per session. If he chooses the feats carefully a dm can create a really challenging but not overwhelmingly strong opponent. Just get "sudden enlarge" and "sudden extend" and watch the fun with those various fog-like spells (obscuring mist, acid fog, incendiary cloud, solid fog,...). Challenging, but not instantly lethal. 4.) You guys are indeed right: the dmg mentions circumstances that can affect the encounter level of a situation. But that is most likely environment. Orcs with crossbows on a balcony the fighter cannot reach are such an example. It is more difficult because the group cannot directly reach the opponent while he can already fight them. A cliff that the enemy must climb while the wizard stands uphill and just rains down fireball after fireball is another one. The wizard should probably get less xp for mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, if the wizard had the idea of digging out the canyon the opponent must climb up, then he should get full xp. The dmg in this case refers to outside circumstances the players have no controll over. Whenever the terrain or other features make the encounter a cake-walk despite what the players want you should lower the encounter level. If the party made good use of the existing terrain, however, and worked out a clever strategy the dm shouldn't take away xp from them because they are clever and think at the gaming table. The gear and class abilities of characters are always assumed to be used to best effect. You would just punish an Assassin to use his Death Attack or the Arcane Archer for firing his Arrow of Death instead of just hacking away the opponent's hitpoints. Never ever would a rogue try to get into a favorable position (via flanking, invisibility, bluffing,...) to be able to use his sneak attack if he received less xp for it. I say leave the characters their special abilities. I mean, a wizard just cannot take a sword and go *hackhackhack*. The same with equipment. The typical level 6 character should have around 13000gp in cash and gear. Of course, the group should get more xp if they fight a monster with damage reduction x/magic when the only magic weapon in the group was devoured by a rust monster in the last session because it is much harder now. On the other hand, a level 20 paladin with a [i]holy avenger greatsword that also has the "evil outsider bane" ability should not get less xp when defeating the Balor just because the sword made it easier (or more likely: at all possible). A level 20 character is supposed to have how much wealth? Around 760000gp if I remember correctly. With that much cash, such a sword is well affordable for the character and the CR system even assumes he has some very powerful magic weapons and armor. 6.) FreeTheSlaves: I still recommend using more than a single encounter per day. The system was designed with 4/day or so in mind and therefore I don't wonder that the wizards and clerics just RULE in the encounters you have. A wizard must always ask himself: "Do I blast the orcs now with my fireball, or should I let the ranger take care of them and save one of my level 3 spells for later?" If he blasts the orcs instead of allowing the ranger to take some archery training and later that day come two centipede swarms the party's way he will most likely regret his previous decision. A good way is something like this: 1 or 2 planned encounter and 3 rolls on the random encounter table. If the group's lucky, they still have only 1 fight that day but don't know that in advance. If they're out of luck, however the players could end up with the need to distribute their resources over 5 fights. Of course the dm shouldn't throw an incoprporeal undead at the group if neither party member has a ghost touch weapon, the wizard's out of [force] spells and the cleric has already used up his turning/healing capabilities for the day. Just apply some common sense and a little judgement and you'll be fine. No need to revive the Baldur's Gate 1 random encounters ;) : party: one wizard1 and one rogue2 hipoints: wizard (damaged: 2), rogue (damaged: 3) spells: wizard (all used up) action: resting random encounter in the night: 5 gnolls!!! 7.) A casters get "save-or-die" spells quite early. The earliest spell one could designate as save-ro-die is even first level: sleep. "Oh, failed your save and now we do sleep? Not my problem, stupid orcs!" *coupdegrace* Those spells that really get your character if he fumbles a single save are distribute quite evenly around the levels and schools: sleep, charm, dominate, disintegrate, circle of death, finger of death, wail of the banshee, polymorph any object, blindness/deafness, ghoul touch, deep slumber, phantasmal killer, feeblemind, magic jar, various symbols, stone to flesh, baleful polymorph, trap the soul, soulbind, the powerword spells, binding, imprisonment and weird to mention some. And they are only from the arcane list from the v3.5 srd. Didn't even mention the divine list (slay living, harm, destruction,...). As always Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Nytmare 02-07-05, 10:20 AM	You would just punish an Assassin to use his Death Attack or the Arcane Archer for firing his Arrow of Death instead of just hacking away the opponent's hitpoints. Re-insert any of the above posts about it not being punishment. Also re-insert my post about the comic strip.
Thorak 02-07-05, 10:38 AM	I'm just gonna go with the most recent post, since I've been gone for a bit of the back-and-forth 1.) With my post "If the wizard [...]" I meant: the wizard should get full xp for coup-de-gracing the umber hulks if it was he who paralyzed them. If they are just standing around because they had a recent date with a lich or a swarm of ghouls, then maybe the wizard should get less xp, for it wasn't him who overcame the challenge (disabling the umber hulks). In the latter case I guess a Diablo2 battle.net player would call that behaviour "leeching". Yes. My example, however, was one where the wizard came upon already-paralyzed umber hulks. If he took the time to paralyze them himself, he's investing resources to do so, and likely risking his hide in the process. 2.) The example with the lottery is quite risky. If you got just some computer generated random tip for 2.5€ than you're lucky with winning 50€. But if you bought a system tip for say 75€ and win only 50€, then you're probably quite upset. It depends on the situation. A wizard might be great with a 1/day sudden maximized fireball against orcs/goblins/hobgoblins/ogres/... But what if he encounters fire elementals/devils/salamander/efreeti/...? You can bet he'll wish he had taken "energy substitution" instead of "sudden maximize". And "sudden quicken" has so many prerequisites that abuse is almost out of question. Only very high level caster could get that feat without compromising their versatility. So I don't think the "sudden" feats are really broken or that horrible. To better phrase my example, with actual CR and XP values, say you're a level 5 wizard. You can cast Fireball once a day now. He has three level 5 companions, only to make it the assumed 4 characters of equal level CR is balanced against, because they won't factor into the example. The enemy is orcs. Specifically, 44 of them. Milling about in a pretty much circular pack. The orcs are about 500 feet away, and haven't a prayer of noticing the party. So, the wizard casts Fireball. It hits dead-center, and does 5d6 damage. Since each orc has 5hp, even if they save and the wizard rolls minimum damage, they die. It hits every single one (44 being the number of squares inside a 20' radius circle, according to the DMG template). 44 orcs, for a standard 5th level party, that's 6600 XP each. So you tell me, should that one fireball be enough to push all four characters well into 6th level instantly? Or should the experience be reduced, as the DMG describes, for the circumstances, such as surprise, lack of effort, etc. I'm not saying they shouldn't get some experience. Just not the standard CR's value. 3.) Of course a dm cannot use caster with "sudden" feats regularily on the party. Can a dm use the Draconomicon or Libris Mortis for full effect on the group? Well, he can do that of course, but only if he prefers a tpk once per session. If he chooses the feats carefully a dm can create a really challenging but not overwhelmingly strong opponent. Just get "sudden enlarge" and "sudden extend" and watch the fun with those various fog-like spells (obscuring mist, acid fog, incendiary cloud, solid fog,...). Challenging, but not instantly lethal. We're not talking "full effect". We're talking a single feat. If a single feat shouldn't be used regularly on the party because it's too much, then perhaps the party shouldn't be using it either. 4.) You guys are indeed right: the dmg mentions circumstances that can affect the encounter level of a situation. But that is most likely environment. Orcs with crossbows on a balcony the fighter cannot reach are such an example. It is more difficult because the group cannot directly reach the opponent while he can already fight them. A cliff that the enemy must climb while the wizard stands uphill and just rains down fireball after fireball is another one. The wizard should probably get less xp for mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, if the wizard had the idea of digging out the canyon the opponent must climb up, then he should get full xp. The dmg in this case refers to outside circumstances the players have no controll over. Whenever the terrain or other features make the encounter a cake-walk despite what the players want you should lower the encounter level. If the party made good use of the existing terrain, however, and worked out a clever strategy the dm shouldn't take away xp from them because they are clever and think at the gaming table. The gear and class abilities of characters are always assumed to be used to best effect. You would just punish an Assassin to use his Death Attack or the Arcane Archer for firing his Arrow of Death instead of just hacking away the opponent's hitpoints. Never ever would a rogue try to get into a favorable position (via flanking, invisibility, bluffing,...) to be able to use his sneak attack if he received less xp for it. I say leave the characters their special abilities. I mean, a wizard just cannot take a sword and go *hackhackhack*. The same with equipment. The typical level 6 character should have around 13000gp in cash and gear. Of course, the group should get more xp if they fight a monster with damage reduction x/magic when the only magic weapon in the group was devoured by a rust monster in the last session because it is much harder now. On the other hand, a level 20 paladin with a [i]holy avenger greatsword that also has the "evil outsider bane" ability should not get less xp when defeating the Balor just because the sword made it easier (or more likely: at all possible). A level 20 character is supposed to have how much wealth? Around 760000gp if I remember correctly. With that much cash, such a sword is well affordable for the character and the CR system even assumes he has some very powerful magic weapons and armor. I'll just note that, in the case of finishing an encounter in the first move, whether it be sneak attacking, arrow of deathing, or a single spell, there's a lot more reward than simply experience. And nobody's necessarily saying you should get no experience. Just heavily reduced. For instance, even if you get little experience for dropping the balor, you still get the treasure he's got. That's a pretty hefty reward you just got for very little risk. Seems good to me. 7.) A casters get "save-or-die" spells quite early. The earliest spell one could designate as save-ro-die is even first level: sleep. "Oh, failed your save and now we do sleep? Not my problem, stupid orcs!" *coupdegrace* Those spells that really get your character if he fumbles a single save are distribute quite evenly around the levels and schools: sleep, charm, dominate, disintegrate, circle of death, finger of death, wail of the banshee, polymorph any object, blindness/deafness, ghoul touch, deep slumber, phantasmal killer, feeblemind, magic jar, various symbols, stone to flesh, baleful polymorph, trap the soul, soulbind, the powerword spells, binding, imprisonment and weird to mention some. And they are only from the arcane list from the v3.5 srd. Didn't even mention the divine list (slay living, harm, destruction,...). Sleep, however, is limited in that it only affects a very few HD worth of creatures. It quickly becomes useless against creatures that will give you worthwhile XP. Nor would sleep work with my 44 orc example above. Nor would many of these. Besides, we're not talking about luck. We're talking about risk and effort. If it were a lucky shot, where you rolled the 20 you needed to get by the critter's SR, and it rolled the 1 it needed to fail the save, you should get full XP. At least because of the risk; the circumstances didn't dictate that it was easier, random chance did. That it was in one big roll at the start is little different than the party always rolling high to-hit rolls and the balor consistently missing. And these lucky chances even out over time, the wizard won't be save-or-dieing everything in their path. What we're talking about is circumstances. Which clearly, in the DMG, modify experience rewarded. Thorak, allow me to congratulate you on inventing the game of Diablo and Dragons. Where everyone is a high-level Barbarian/Fighter, because it pays to be a big slab of beef where you can hack all day and get XP, but not to be a wizard, because the DM ****s you out of your XP for using your class powers. Do you have a point, or do you want to continue to ramble incoherently? I never said anything about people being barbarians or fighters. I never said a wizard would get less XP for casting spells. I never said anything even remotely like what you're claiming. I only ever said that, if the circumstances of the encounter lead to the party defeating it with ridiculouse ease, they should not get full value. Precisely as the DMG says. "Circumstances" aren't things like failing a save. Circumstances are things like being surprised, being grouped nice and close for an AoO spell, etc, etc. If you're going to contribute, kindly ensure you A> have a point, and B> that the guy you quote says anything even close to what you claim he did.
ShadowDragon8685 02-07-05, 02:55 PM	Actually Thorak, that's exactly what you're saying. Welcome to Diablo and Dungeons. Because apparently in your game, if you want to go up in level, forget spellcasting, forget Sneak Attacking. Just get a Whirlwind/GreatCleave Barb and wade into the orcs, hacking them apart in great quantity each round. As I said, Diablo and Dungeons. You're PUNISHING the players for using their skills. Okay? The CR is VERY CLEAR. An opponant has a CR. Overcoming them through ANY MEANS POSSIBLE is overcoming them, and is worth FULL EXPERIANCE! If the Rogue can sneak up on the Balor and give him some super-smitey sneak attackage, congratulations Rogue, you just got to be the luckiest schmuck ever. You get full experiance points for BRILLIANT USE OF YOUR CLASS FEATURES. Wizard, you caught 44 orcs milling around in the perfect formation to get nuked? Congratulations, 1,650 XP for all, because you guys just took down an encounter level 9 fight. (Yes, it's 1,650, not 6,600. Check your rules before you go around beating the player's XP with a stick of HandWavium.) That took some really good *******ed tactics, to catch 44 orcs all in a Charlie Foxtrot, or else the DM was linein' 'em up so you could knock 'em down. Can the Wizard even SEE that far? Sorry. But making use of your class features is what you're supposed to do, dipsh. It IS punishing people for using their class features, because according to you people if they did the stupid thing and charged in like idiots, they'd get full XP.
Nytmare 02-07-05, 03:31 PM	But making use of your class features is what you're supposed to do, dipsh. It IS punishing people for using their class features, because according to you people if they did the stupid thing and charged in like idiots, they'd get full XP. Is that somehow supposed to be subtle? How do you get a moderator to notice stuff like this nowadays?
Cold Napalm 02-07-05, 03:34 PM	Okay free the slave...so you take the sudden at level 6 right? That's one less metamagic/other feats you can choose. I'm saying, really, not worth it for high level games where it's effect is MUCH less relivant since things have more HP and it's only once per day. So you get boosted at low levels big deal, you still giving up power at high level to do it. It's like taking a few levels of fighter at low levels to boost low level power...you lose out at high levels. As for the DM using em...sure why not. I do it, and it does not make every session a TPK...then again we as a group don't make wussy character either...we actually optimize a bit...wonder of wonders.
Alcari Ambaron 02-07-05, 04:46 PM	Ok, it is of topic, but i have to day it anyway. Why do all you people take pretty good examples and say that the situation cannot be like that, or kill a great example by arguiing on a minor point in it. Wizard, you caught 44 orcs milling around in the perfect formation to get nuked? Congratulations, 1,650 XP for all, because you guys just took down an encounter level 9 fight. (Yes, it's 1,650, not 6,600. Check your rules before you go around beating the player's XP with a stick of HandWavium.) That took some really good *******ed tactics, to catch 44 orcs all in a Charlie Foxtrot, or else the DM was linein' 'em up so you could knock 'em down. Can the Wizard even SEE that far? WHO CARES about the being grouped together, this example is meant as an EXAMPLE. that means it illustrates a certain situation compatable to it. the Arcane Archer for firing his Arrow of Death instead of just hacking away the opponent's hitpoints. Never ever would a rogue try to get into a favorable position (via flanking, invisibility, bluffing,...) to be able to use his sneak attack if he received less xp for it. I say leave the characters their special abilities. I mean, a wizard just cannot take a sword and go *hackhackhack*. Well, an Arrow of death is a big expenditure of recources, so that would get you some XP, just not full. my point is, players encounter monsters. That word there "encounter" means that the characters encounter a monster, they do not do it for fun. They do it to help a town/ get a reward/ STAY ALIVE. characters do not (usually) go "monster hunting" and most definatly not to "discover things about them"(get XP). if they do, they are the most horrible munchkins. XP represents knowledge gained. To once more refer to the 44 orcs, my characters main reward would be them not dying a horrible death by the hands(and axes) of orc. blasting them with a single fireball would get my players only a little more XP then sneaking around the 44 orcs. As for the DM using em...sure why not. I do it, and it does not make every session a TPK...then again we as a group don't make wussy character either...we actually optimize a bit...wonder of wonders. suppose. A level 5 party ecounters 2 level 5 wizards, all with suddened spells. they wizards get a surprise round. both cast fireball 5d6 is an averange 17.5 17.5 * 150% = 26.25 2*26.25 = 52 damage may i say that a barbarian with 18 con has an averange 52.5 HP on level 5....... and the averange party tends to stay close together --> TPK. I MAY have overlooked some small tiny detail in this example, feel free not to point it out if its not important to the fact im trying to point out. If i have made a big mistake, please say so. But making use of your class features is what you're supposed to do, ***** It IS punishing people for using their class features, because according to you people if they did the stupid thing and charged in like idiots, they'd get full XP. suppose a class feature would be "build pittrap". a character can beat a monster in the woods in two ways. 1. build lots of traps and hope the monster falls in --> less effort, less learned, less XP 2. Build one trap and lure the monster in it by running in front of it and jumping pit, so the monster falls in. --> more effort, more learned, more XP (not as much as actually fighting it) now if situation 1 would give you an equal amount XP as fighting it, you could just go to an abandoned field and dig a million holes to level up..... same with class features, if i prepare a whole area with "landmine" spells and wait for a monster to run into it, that would be the same as just cating a lot of spells at nothing in particular. (except that i would give some XP and players get treasure). And to come back to the "Summoner on mountaintop" thing. let me rephrase it. A summoner stands FAR FAR away from a monster, it then summons stuff to make a run for the enemy and attack it once before the spell runs out. That would not give the summoner a lot of XP beacuse it would be the same as summoning the monsters/nature's allies and ordering them to stand still. this would make an encounter unfairly easy, but it is indeed wrong to immediatly cut XP. HOWEVER if this becomes standard tactics for the group, then less XP should be awarded. And it is not PUNISHING, for the above reason (surviving is the main reward) and also this: B & C do a job for A A gives 20$ to B A gives 15$ to C I ask you, how is A punishing C??????? ps. how do I include a name in the Quotes?
Snommelp 02-07-05, 05:08 PM	@ Alcari Ambaron: in the opening QUOTE tag, change it from [QUOTE] to [QUOTE=name]. That's all there is to it. @ ShadowDragon8685: I enjoy a good debate. However, one of the key elements of a good debate is proof. Prove to me that Thorak is advocating "Diablo and Dungeons," and I will consider your points worthy of debating.
Thorak 02-08-05, 01:08 AM	Actually Thorak, that's exactly what you're saying. Welcome to Diablo and Dungeons. Because apparently in your game, if you want to go up in level, forget spellcasting, forget Sneak Attacking. Just get a Whirlwind/GreatCleave Barb and wade into the orcs, hacking them apart in great quantity each round. Except I clearly haven't said anything of the sort. Kindly stick to the point, and stop building straw men and patting yourself on the back for how pretty they are. As I said, Diablo and Dungeons. You're PUNISHING the players for using their skills. No, I'm rewarding them less because the circumstances reduced the difficulty of the encounter. Exactly as the DMG describes. I remind you of the little cartoon with the ogre-in-a-box; difficulty is an important factor of experience. Okay? The CR is VERY CLEAR. An opponant has a CR. Overcoming them through ANY MEANS POSSIBLE is overcoming them, and is worth FULL EXPERIANCE! If the Rogue can sneak up on the Balor and give him some super-smitey sneak attackage, congratulations Rogue, you just got to be the luckiest schmuck ever. You get full experiance points for BRILLIANT USE OF YOUR CLASS FEATURES. Wizard, you caught 44 orcs milling around in the perfect formation to get nuked? Congratulations, 1,650 XP for all, because you guys just took down an encounter level 9 fight. (Yes, it's 1,650, not 6,600. Check your rules before you go around beating the player's XP with a stick of HandWavium.) That took some really good *******ed tactics, to catch 44 orcs all in a Charlie Foxtrot, or else the DM was linein' 'em up so you could knock 'em down. Can the Wizard even SEE that far? I see you don't understand experience. First, the amount; yes, I forgot to divvy it by the number of players. I can make mistakes, but I can also point out how my point's still relevant even though my math got gummed up. Take em out, since they were irrelevant anyway. Should casting one Fireball result in the wizard going up a level? Second; CR is very clear, yes. What you're apparently unaware of is that CR isn't the only factor in experience. Kindly read the Experience rules from page 39 on. Specifically the parts that refer to Encounter Level, and circumstance bonuses/penalties. Then flip ahead to page 48, and read the Encounters section. CR is only one aspect of experience, and isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing modifying the EL of the encounter to change the experience provided by the CR of the creatures. This is entirely by the book. Sorry. But making use of your class features is what you're supposed to do, dipsh. It IS punishing people for using their class features, because according to you people if they did the stupid thing and charged in like idiots, they'd get full XP. You continue to miss the point. Both because you refuse to admit that the DMG says to do exactly what I'm saying, so however you do it is the variant, unofficial version, and because you keep harping on this dual straw man of "punishment" and the reason for it. It isn't punishment, it is reducing the award. Hence my analogy to a lottery ticket; this is "punishment" the same way only winning 50 bucks on a 1 dollar ticket is "losing". And it has nothing to do with people using class abilities, it has to do with circumstances modifying the EL and reducing the experience given because of the ease of the encounter. It is true whether we're talking about sneak attacks, spells, or the fighter levering a big boulder to fall down in the pit with 10,000 kobolds. That has nothing to do with class abilities, and the fighter is not going to get the experience for killing 10,000 kobolds. For the exact same reasons. So kindly drop the straw man arguments, and read the bloody DMG.
FreeTheSlaves 02-08-05, 02:23 AM	6.) FreeTheSlaves: I still recommend using more than a single encounter per day. As do I but in this case the DM is deciding to not do this. This is not necessarily wrong but the DM needs to know the consequences that follow: If I was in a campaign that usually only has one or two encounters per day I would make my character good for short bursts. This is not only good character design but logical character development. The problem here is that the sudden feat allows the character to pack too much power for their level. The same would be true with a Paladin wielding divine might in such a campaign - the combats would be infrequent enough that the feat wouldn't run out and thus may overshadow weapon specialization. If every character has an alternate-rule boost and the DM can adjust then this is great, but here we have a case of the DM not liking what is happening and reducing the XP award. Personally, if I was the DM that was running a less intense combat campaign I would not allow optional feats/spells/magic items that allowed the character to pressurize their character's power into very short but very intense bursts. Likewise if I was the player of a character that was causing friction I would talk to my DM and be prepared to make some changes for game harmony. Although If the DM was acceptably satisfied with just reducing XP for pushover encounters I would happily suck it up and keep my sudden feat.
FreeTheSlaves 02-08-05, 02:37 AM	Okay free the slave...so you take the sudden at level 6 right? That's one less metamagic/other feats you can choose. I'm saying, really, not worth it for high level games where it's effect is MUCH less relivant since things have more HP and it's only once per day. So you get boosted at low levels big deal, you still giving up power at high level to do it. It's like taking a few levels of fighter at low levels to boost low level power...you lose out at high levels. As for the DM using em...sure why not. I do it, and it does not make every session a TPK...then again we as a group don't make wussy character either...we actually optimize a bit...wonder of wonders. I think that the sudden feat is actually going to scale with the Wizard in terms of usefullness. It would allow a 9th level Wizard to cast an empowered cone of cold that would normally use a 7th level slot by a 13th level Wizard. Maybe the power level of the campaign is a relevant factor. 2 of our 3 campaigns use 25 point buy and I know that if I biffed a suddenly maximized & empowered fireball at the party they would take me out back for a beating. ;) The 3rd campaign is Uber gestalt characters of about 60 point buy with maximized hit points - they can handle a mountain falling on them... Question then is what power level is this campaign?
Ra-Tiel 02-08-05, 03:15 AM	[...] Well, an Arrow of death is a big expenditure of recources, so that would get you some XP, just not full. [...] In fact, Arrow of Death is a special class feature of the Arcane Archer. It takes 1 day to create it and it lasts at most a year. A target damaged by it must pass a Fort Save DC20 or be slain. But as it doesn't cost you anything, as you can replace it every day, according to some people's argumentation the Archer should get fewer xp for using his most powerful class ability. [...] And it is not PUNISHING, for the above reason (surviving is the main reward) and also this: B & C do a job for A A gives 20$ to B A gives 15$ to C I ask you, how is A punishing C??????? [...] If B and C did the same amount of work for A they both should get the same reward for doing so. In cutting C short of money, A risks a very intersting talk with some lawyer. Would you work in a company where your partner got double the money you get for the same work you did because your boss likes him more? Seriously, I highly doubt that. Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Cold Napalm 02-08-05, 06:52 AM	Most games are run 4d6 drop lowest...some 5d6 drop lowest two (we adjust points so everyone is comparable to highest rolled). We generally have somewhere between a +6 to +10 bonus total. So faily high powered. Also high level is 13+, not 9 for us. So at 13+ you can either sudden empower an orb spell once or empower it multiple times...sure at a higher spell level but with lots of spell slots but it is more power in the end. Sudden becomes less useful 13+ CL. Al...umm your overlooking things like saves and evasion. Also if a party gets surprised by 2 wizards...well their dead at any levels sudden or no past level 5. Let's see I had 2 wizards level 18 surprise a level 20 group of 6 players. So they unlease metor swarm both the surprise round...killing the 2 mages and rogue and really really hurting the two fighter and cleric. Init comes around, fighter gets a few attacks in and cleric casts heal, two empowered maxmized vampiric touch followed by a quickened vampiric touch drops two and my wizards are more then full hp...last one fall next round. Another example, two wizards level 9 surprise a level 11 party of 4. The drop 2 extended icestorms doing a total of 20d6 no save befoe they get to act. wizard dead. The rogue is near dead. The sorcerer falls and the cleric is very badly hurt. Init...wizard one drops another ice storm, killing sorcerer and rogue. The cleric near death heals but the second wizard casts an orb spell to negate the healing and cleric dies next round. Two wizards surprising a party just means they are dead unless you as a DM pull your punch. Oh yeah and there was that combat with 10 level 3 wizards and 5 level 5 wizard who surprised a level 15 party...10 snilloc snowball swarm and 5 fireballs later...i.e. 20d6+25d6...the two survivers ran. Multiple wizards + area spells + surprise = TPK...feat or no feats.
ShadowDragon8685 02-08-05, 09:13 AM	Thank you, Ra-Tiel. You make my point. And to those who say he isen't advocating Diablo and Dragons, HAVE YOU READ HIS ******* POSTS?! He SPECIFICALLY says that if you engage a monster in direct combat, which apparently means MELEE in his games, you get full XP! If you use your CLASS FEATURES such as Fireball, or Arrow of Death, he gives you LESS experiance, because apparently it made the encounter Too Easy. :rant: Now EXCUSE me if I'm the only one who can put 2 + 2 together, and arrive at the fact that if you want to get the proper amount of experiance, you put together a min/maxxed two-hand sword fighter and wade into melee, whereas if you want to play a Wizard, or Arcane Archer or something, you are going to get NOT enough melee. This reminds me of Diablo II, wherein the only way to levelup fast is to wade directly into huge hordes of monsters and begin hacking them down. THAT is where I get Diablo and Dragons from. And as for the Is that somehow supposed to be subtle? How do you get a moderator to notice stuff like this nowadays? thing, I was laughing for five minutes when you pointed it out. Apparently it's so subtle that I myself didn't notice. Go me, I must've rolled a DC 172 Slight of Hand check to not notice that, AS I TYPED IT. Heheh.
Snommelp 02-08-05, 09:43 AM	ShadowDragon, please calm down. Typing in big red fonts does nothing to make your argument more appealing. As I have said before, if you provide solid evidence (quotes, in this case), your argument will vis a vis become better.
striderII 02-08-05, 09:48 AM	And to those who say he isen't advocating Diablo and Dragons, HAVE YOU READ HIS ******* POSTS?! Actually, yes. Apparently you haven't - see below. He SPECIFICALLY says that if you engage a monster in direct combat, which apparently means MELEE in his games, you get full XP! "Apparently" is a word that denotes inference. Which means YOU are INFERRING a point. It does not mean that he actually made that point. "Engaging a monster in direct combat" does not necessarily mean melee combat. However, your proven track record of tunnel vision thinking clearly goes against this. And as for the Quote: Is that somehow supposed to be subtle? How do you get a moderator to notice stuff like this nowadays? thing, I was laughing for five minutes when you pointed it out. Apparently it's so subtle that I myself didn't notice. Go me, I must've rolled a DC 172 Slight of Hand check to not notice that, AS I TYPED IT. Heheh. That, I will call out to be a blatant lie. I believe none of it. strider
Alcari Ambaron 02-08-05, 10:44 AM	appologies are in order here, upon reading the books again i feel the need to say you can ignore what i said about death arrows. In fact, Arrow of Death is a special class feature of the Arcane Archer. It takes 1 day to create it and it lasts at most a year. A target damaged by it must pass a Fort Save DC20 or be slain. But as it doesn't cost you anything, as you can replace it every day, according to some people's argumentation the Archer should get fewer xp for using his most powerful class ability. I'm sorry, I thought it was only for one specific creature. in which case you had to go to the monster, leave, spend one day making an arrow, go back to meet even more monster.... but thats not the case. Indeed if a Death arrow kills the one monster encouter --> less XP If B and C did the same amount of work for A they both should get the same reward for doing so. In cutting C short of money, A risks a very intersting talk with some lawyer. [...] strange, I dont recall a contract with my players stating that i always reward them XP as stated in the DMG. Also, A&B did NOT do the same work. "A" did the work nicely and orderly, but "B" chose a very easy path to get it done. MAIN POINT OF REPLY If you use your CLASS FEATURES such as Fireball, or Arrow of Death, he gives you LESS experiance, because apparently it made the encounter Too Easy. No, thats is (again) not true. doesnt matter if you use your abilities or not.... killing theWHOLE ENCOUTER with a single hit/action is the point here. The slight decrease in XP award is compensated by the fact that you were at no risk whatsoever, and did not spend any resources on fighting it. If i (IRL) could choose between learning more of a fight, but risk being killed and definatly spending a LOT of money on it, i'd go for the Less-XP-but-not-being-eaten-by-monster sollution.
Ra-Tiel 02-08-05, 11:47 AM	@Alacri Ambaron: 1.) No problem. We all make mistakes (but not all have the courage to apologize). No need to put you under pressure on this. 2.) [...] No, thats is (again) not true. doesnt matter if you use your abilities or not.... killing theWHOLE ENCOUTER with a single hit/action is the point here. The slight decrease in XP award is compensated by the fact that you were at no risk whatsoever, and did not spend any resources on fighting it. [...] I think the main problem here is: what to do with classes that had their class features specifically designed towards that end? Compare the assassin: its death attack is powerful, possibly allowing the character to slay any living opponent with a single blow. The same's true for the Arcane Archer. And to some degree for all caster classes. I guess the new spells and feats were specifically designed by the guys at WotC to increase the characters powers and allow them to fell their enemies with ease. If I might recommend you the thread "Power Creep" by Edymnion in the "Regdar's Repository"? There are quite some points in that thread. It indeed is the most powerful ability to remove an opponent with a single spell/blow/feat/item/... from the encounter. But consider: if you remove that ability for the players then you should also remove it for the enemies. No finger of death for the party wizard = no finger of death for the rest of the world. If you just cut the pcs, than that's what I call unfair. 3.) And by the way: a Balor is set as a CR20 single monster encounter. So a party with 4 members at level 20 should have a reasonable chance of defeating it without pc death and only spend ~20% of their resources. But if you read the Balor's "spell-like abilities" you will notice that the Balor has implosion. And with its +11 to Init it's really hard to guess who goes first in combat. Now my question: do you beef up the xps the group (assuming they survive at all) gets because of the save-or-die effect the tanar'ri can evoke that he is assumed to evoke? If the fiend didn't possess the more powerful of his spell-like abilities it wouldn't be considered CR20. What would you do if the Balor in question wouldn't have "Quicken Spell-like Ability: Telekinesis" but instead "Quicken Spell-Like Ability: Implosion"? 4.) Similar to 3.): what about enemies with pc classes? According to the official books 1 level of a player character class = CR 1, so 2 levels are CR 3, 3 levels CR 3 and so on. But as an opponent is supposed to use the most effective methods he has available in a fight to overcome his enemy and survive the combat what if he has none available? Say the party (level 10) encounters an evil necromancer (necromancer specialist 10). But the necromancer, corrupted and mad as he is, as not a single metamagic feat, yet alone sudden feats. He even lacks improved initiative. His only resources are his spells, and that alone. If we apply your logic consequently, you would have to lower the wizard's CR below his HD to account for his reduced effectivity. According to the all-beloved dmg, you would have to award full xp for the group because the wizard is yet using his best methods available to him and the encounter is balanced for the group. 5.) I think this question has not been asked yet: Why do you mess around with xp rewards at all? From the DMG: [...] Experience points are the driving point of the game. They make it fun for the players. [...] Or something similar (I don't have it with me right now, but I've read it yesterday evening). I'm getting upset at dms who just cut xp (=the reward for overcoming opposition = the fun for the players) just because they feel that "the combat was too easy because ...". The same monster might have just slaughtered the whole group (if the dice were out to get the players). If you as dm have told the players beforehand that you take a different approach at xp than that's perfectly ok. If the players knew what was coming their way and knew how you would handle xp than please accept my apologies. But if not... :headexplo The same procedure as every year: Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Thorak 02-08-05, 11:58 AM	Thank you, Ra-Tiel. You make my point. And to those who say he isen't advocating Diablo and Dragons, HAVE YOU READ HIS ******* POSTS?! As others have pointed out already, have you? See below for how you are blatantly lying. He SPECIFICALLY says that if you engage a monster in direct combat, which apparently means MELEE in his games, you get full XP! If you use your CLASS FEATURES such as Fireball, or Arrow of Death, he gives you LESS experiance, because apparently it made the encounter Too Easy. Really? I specifically said all that? Quote me, then. Seems to me I said, as others have pointed out, that if you get past an encounter due to a single low-cost action, you should recieve no experience. I never once stated I reduced experience whenever someone used a class ability, or that it was even based on class abilities. Perhaps you missed the point about the fighter and the pit of 10,000 kobolds in my last post. Or perhaps you aren't even reading my posts. Considering how much of this you're making up yourself, that frankly wouldn't surprise me. Now EXCUSE me if I'm the only one who can put 2 + 2 together, and arrive at the fact that if you want to get the proper amount of experiance, you put together a min/maxxed two-hand sword fighter and wade into melee, whereas if you want to play a Wizard, or Arcane Archer or something, you are going to get NOT enough melee. This reminds me of Diablo II, wherein the only way to levelup fast is to wade directly into huge hordes of monsters and begin hacking them down. THAT is where I get Diablo and Dragons from. And yet, I never said anything of the sort, unless you're going to try and extend the examples I use, of the 44 orcs and the 10,000 kobolds, to a statement by me that those are typical encounters. Those numbers were only chosen because 44 orcs can be Fireballed at once, and 10,000 is a big number, big enough to give ridiculous experience even if they're kobolds. I never once said a darn thing about favouring melee over anything else. In fact, I said a couple times that mages burning a bunch of spells counts as "using resources". So again, you're making things up. If I said what you claim, why don't you try quoting me? Unless, perhaps, it's because I never bloody said anything even remotely like what you claim. :rolleyes: And as for the thing, I was laughing for five minutes when you pointed it out. Apparently it's so subtle that I myself didn't notice. Go me, I must've rolled a DC 172 Slight of Hand check to not notice that, AS I TYPED IT. Heheh. I gotta agree with StriderII; what the heck did you mean by "dipsh", if it weren't what he pointed out? "Dipsh" isn't a word.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-08-05, 06:14 PM	thing, I was laughing for five minutes when you pointed it out. Apparently it's so subtle that I myself didn't notice. Go me, I must've rolled a DC 172 Slight of Hand check to not notice that, AS I TYPED IT. Heheh.. Sorry. But making use of your class features is what you're supposed to do, dipsh. . (emphasis mine.) congratulations are in order, sir. not only did you manage not to notice it, but at the same time, you added the right punctuation before it. clearly, your subconscious is powerfull. :tiphat: As for diablo and Dragon, I feel have to throw my 2 cents, as I like the analogy. Diablo: no need to think. Charge, cast or use the same tactics over and over, you're gonna get the same XP and the monsters will never learn. Real D&D: The DM judge the challenge posed by an encounter and reward his players accordingly. to help the DM gauge the amount of experience to give, the DMG got this little CR table... Oops. Turns out YOU're advocating diablo&dragons. Please, do THIS, this , this or This to highlight a word. noneed to write in large characters.
Alcari Ambaron 02-09-05, 02:00 PM	Real D&D: The DM judge the challenge posed by an encounter and reward his players accordingly. to help the DM gauge the amount of experience to give, the DMG got this little CR table... beautifull, could not have said it better.
striderII 02-09-05, 02:04 PM	(emphasis mine.) congratulations are in order, sir. not only did you manage not to notice it, but at the same time, you added the right punctuation before it. clearly, your subconscious is powerfull. *golf clap* Possibly, the highest honor possibly given. This is great. Now, if it would only shut him up....somehow, I doubt it... *sigh* strider :)
Nytmare 02-09-05, 11:44 PM	And as for the thing, I was laughing for five minutes when you pointed it out. Apparently it's so subtle that I myself didn't notice. Go me, I must've rolled a DC 172 Slight of Hand check to not notice that, AS I TYPED IT. Heheh. What is it that they say about having a million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters for a million years? Eventually one of them will be able to accidentally produce a proper flame? We were so close!
Snommelp 02-09-05, 11:49 PM	Let's just forget ShadowDragon and get back to the discussion at hand. Where were we?
Godzilla 02-10-05, 12:33 AM	You'll probably love the way I do it, then. What I do, is if the party takes out the enemies in just one of the party's turns, I award them extra XP for making quick work for their opposition. But, your DM is allowed to do it how he wants to, now how you want to.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-10-05, 01:46 AM	Let's just forget ShadowDragon and get back to the discussion at hand. Where were we? As usual, you are a font of wisdom. but... were there anything else to add? I think every position's been stated and restated at nauseam... There's been nothing really new posted for a long time... Beside, if we forget Shadowdragon, then this thread isn't even existing, as most of us answered his "statement of powergaming"... Edit: StriderII, Alcari Ambaron : Thanks you My head's now officially swolen...:angelhide !
ORC_Tuhteth 02-11-05, 12:54 PM	As usual, you are a font of wisdom. but... were there anything else to add? I think every position's been stated and restated at nauseam... There's been nothing really new posted for a long time... I wholeheartedly agree. And rather than wait for a new batch of flame bait, let's just close it and walk away. :) (Of course, after giving the topic the usual 48 hour cooling-off period, if you think of a new angle on this question, feel free to reopen the topic.)