As it turns out, a creature 4 levels lower than a given level almost always has half the experience points--so knowing that, this is the keyword I wrote up:
Coward: Placed as a keyword similar to Leader, a monster with this keyword flees when bloodied, but reward only half experience for doing so. The party does not earn additional experience for reducing the creature to 0 hit points.
I've intentionally left "flee" undefined--if your NPC dives behind a crate and stops fighting, or runs away from the battlefield, or teleports away, or kneels and surrenders, or if your wizard cast fireball at a group of Cowards, they might just be panicking on fire and not contributing to the battle.
The end result is exactly the same situation the Draconomicon prescribes:
If I wanted a level 11 dragon encounter where the dragon surrenders, I would use a level 15 dragon, and award only 3,000 XP (level 11 solo). According to the Draconomicon.
If you took a level 15 dragon, which is worth 6,000 XP, and made it a Coward, it would surrender when it was bloodied (as normal) and would be worth 3,000 XP.
This will lead to much more massive combats, and eliminate the problem of "Why is the town guard fighting to the death?", while adding a mechanically-supported element of roleplaying tension to the game:
"You stab at the guard, slicing open his side. He drops his halberd and grips the wound, starting to back away and run."
Even if you're not a roleplaying-intensive DM (which I am), it's a nice blend of mechanics and the fact that the guards DON'T want to fight to the death--they'd rather run when they get their first serious injury and live to see tomorrow.
I've often thought there needs to be some sort of morale system to the combat rules... :D
There is, it's 'the DM RPs the opposition and decides if and when they run'.
I've often thought there needs to be some sort of morale system to the combat rules... :D
There is, it's 'the DM RPs the opposition and decides if and when they run'.
Yeah but there comes a point that if we were to be realistic, EVERYONE would run.
"So. We just killed a dragon."
"Yeah?"
"And felled a lich."
"Yeah?"
"You're a bunch of pansy human bandits."
"Yeah?"
"Are you REALLY going to make us roll initiative?"
"...guess not, see ya."
I say again, I wish there was a decent morale system... maybe homebrew wizards can come up with one...
I've often thought there needs to be some sort of morale system to the combat rules... :D
There is, it's 'the DM RPs the opposition and decides if and when they run'.
Yeah but there comes a point that if we were to be realistic, EVERYONE would run.
"So. We just killed a dragon."
"Yeah?"
"And felled a lich."
"Yeah?"
"You're a bunch of pansy human bandits."
"Yeah?"
"Are you REALLY going to make us roll initiative?"
"...guess not, see ya."
If the PCs have defeated a dragon and a lich, they are presumably high enough level that a few bandit goons won't provide XP anyway -- so such a reaction would be both realistic and a lot more fun than going through the motions of rolling initiative and attacks.
In any case, I'm amazed that the Draconomicon would suggest reducing XP for having foes run away after being bloodied -- where did this idea come from, that PCs should have to hack through every last hp? I find the idea downright absurd, especially since 4e has such an easy marker for the point in time where foes should consider flight/surrender: the bloodied condition. That any foe, other than mindless zombies and oozes, would regularly fight to the death is silly and is one of the game conventions that does warrant the complaint "D&D is just like a video game."
Foes in my campaigns usually flee or surrender once they get bloodied, both because it's realistic and because frankly 4e monsters have too many hp. Slogging through the last few monster hp is usually a chore for the DM and players both. I can't imagine wanting to doc my players XP for not pursuing that chore, and it's beyond me why other DMs would want to.
In other words, what Salla said.
They simply advise you to grab a monster 4 levels higher, halve it's HP and then halve its XP value. The challenge is bloodying the Dragon and it's worth an amount of XP.
'The kid tries to hit me?'
'Yeah.'
'I'm fighting a child?'
'Yeah.'
'But... why?'
'Do you want experience or not?'
'...'
They don't award more XP for slogging through the HP.
They simply advise you to grab a monster 4 levels higher, halve it's HP and then halve its XP value. The challenge is bloodying the Dragon and it's worth an amount of XP.
Hmm, makes sense; its defenses are at least +4 (that's 20% more difficulty in hitting), and the objective is to just make its HP go down by 50% (actually just 25% of the original value). For some players that'd be as simple as one crit, while for others it'd be a whole spammage of powers. Should be a fun way of giving the players a serious beatdown but at the same time giving them a good chance to end the encounter quickly.
Reminds me of that other thread where they would place a solo minion that dodged everything but died when the wizard crits it with his staff...
Hmm, this'd be off-topic, but why do I have a feeling that this ruling would allow DMs a more balanced way of going about players who frequently (ab)use the Intimidate-bloodied-opponents-to-make-them-surrender bit. I mean, if the players' common tactic is bloody enemies -> Intimidate -> make them run away or surrender, then it'd probably be a good idea to pick enemies 4 levels higher, half their HP & XP, then have the players go about it as usual. If they wonder why they're getting less XP, you could mention that they've earned a reputation for themselves, enough to make enemies fight half-heartedly and flee when asked to surrender (so they're still getting something for their efforts, just not as much as they would've if they didn't abuse the tactic so much).
Hmm, this'd be off-topic, but why do I have a feeling that this ruling would allow DMs a more balanced way of going about players who frequently (ab)use the Intimidate-bloodied-opponents-to-make-them-surrender bit. I mean, if the players' common tactic is bloody enemies -> Intimidate -> make them run away or surrender, then it'd probably be a good idea to pick enemies 4 levels higher, half their HP & XP, then have the players go about it as usual. If they wonder why they're getting less XP, you could mention that they've earned a reputation for themselves, enough to make enemies fight half-heartedly and flee when asked to surrender (so they're still getting something for their efforts, just not as much as they would've if they didn't abuse the tactic so much).
Actually, I will now always halve XP when my PCs use diplomancy, reguardless of the encounter or game. Should keep one player from rolling out his +24 check he loves so much... in 3.x, at level 2.
And I can't figure out why my post has two quotes.
Actually, I will now always halve XP when my PCs use diplomancy, reguardless of the encounter or game. Should keep one player from rolling out his +24 check he loves so much... in 3.x, at level 2.
And I can't figure out why my post has two quotes.
Well, it's a bit too much, but yeah, having that much diplomacy at that low a level would make the checks so trivial, why should they get more-than-trivial EXP if they're milking it way too much? Oh and the double-quote thing is probably a boards issue...
I've often thought there needs to be some sort of morale system to the combat rules... :D
I have been debating this sense 3.5 and how to do it. Infact you've led me to start a new post.
villains may have similar reasons why they might leave a fight when subdued. that might be at bloodied, and it might be lower...
local militias and guards and bandits and theives might be equally motivated to stay alive by leaving a fight or giving up before death.
that doesn't mean that a small fight with low-level bandits might not still be an encounter to harrass, delay, use the resources of, or attempt to kill a PC. any fight could potentially give the opportunity of death to a group of PCs. Thus, no group would ever get me to not call for initiative by spouting off their previous wins agianst other beasties and baddies. that is absurd. I'd probably boost the encounter pre-fight if they tried something dumb like that. ridiculous.
also, using intimidate and bluff and diplomacy are not insta-wins. those can make some pretty big swinging influences, but, just as i know that i can't make the PC stop by using a high intimidate from monster toward PC, they can't stop an NPC with a high intimidate roll.
when i've got players that will respond with surrender to a high intimidate roll from a BBEG, then i'll start considering the ludicrous idea of NPCs surrendering under a high intimidate roll.
also, just as roadside bandits might have little chance of defeating a group of mid/high-level PCs in an actual fight, that doesn't mean that they really want to be arrested and brought to justice for hanging, they may prefer to die fighting and at least, maybe, possibly, take down a PC with their best efforts to the last breath.
Enemies get shot, collapse on the ground and crawl away, or hide behind rocks, and so on. It was rather intense, and the players really felt the personalities of their enemies as existent; and yet, it was merely a mechanical way of reducing hit points, whether they were dead or not, and halving XP.
It was a mountain of baddies too. When the party was surrounded by about nine enemies similar to them in level, they knew they were in for a dangerous fight. The battle was more intense, the enemies were more realistic... it was fun.
I am really enjoying this 'Coward' keyword and will use it more.
I ran a game today where every NPC except for the most hardcore soldiers had the Coward keyword. It made for a very large, very interesting battle. I didn't even have to roleplay things out for the nameless masses of soldiers: the players simply UNDERSTOOD that they were fighting intelligent creatures.
Enemies get shot, collapse on the ground and crawl away, or hide behind rocks, and so on. It was rather intense, and the players really felt the personalities of their enemies as existent; and yet, it was merely a mechanical way of reducing hit points, whether they were dead or not, and halving XP.
It was a mountain of baddies too. When the party was surrounded by about nine enemies similar to them in level, they knew they were in for a dangerous fight. The battle was more intense, the enemies were more realistic... it was fun.
I am really enjoying this 'Coward' keyword and will use it more.
Glad to hear some of your playtest experiences on this. Even more so since it seems to be working well.
In a typical video game RPG (of the Japanese type), a monster that was pretty defensive (in armor/defense or lots of HP) and had a very likely chance to "flee" usually would yield a substantial reward when killed.