We track down a Paladin friend of ours at a town that has been burned during some evil ritual and agree to go help him find the BBEG. While exploring the main room in the small keep, we are attacked by a Vrock...that summoned another Vrock. The Party:
Myself, Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Dragon Disciple 3
- defensive tank that still packs a punch
Half-Orc Fighter/Warblade (level 8)
- offensive melee
Human? Cleric 6
- the Half-Orc's cohort
Dwarf Scout 4/Ranger 4
- Swift Hunter archer
Halfling Rogue (wilderness variant from arcana) 8
- party skills-guy, but pretty useless in a fight
NPC Paladin 8
- spent most of the time bleeding on the floor consuming our healing
As you can see...we aren't exactly powerful. For the battle, here are the approximate results. I used everything I had, except 2 bardic music uses and my 0 level spells, and lost at least ~130% max HP. The half-orc was unable to do much of anything due to the battlefield layout (ie - no maneuvers used), but he lost more HP than I did overall. The cleric used all of his spells (save level 0), and lost at least his full HP. The hunter was fairly unscathed, actually. The rogue almost bought it when one of the Vrocks flew to where he was and pummeled him (it was difficult for the rest of us to get to him).
Total reward - 1040xp each, 0gp
His ruling - Vrock A was CR 9, Vrock B was CR 6 (because it was summoned), then he gave us 150% xp. Yes, I know that equates to ~1440xp, but whatever.
Now, by the book (I'm a hardcore rules lawyer...level playing field for all!), the summoned Vrock is "included" in the first Vrock's CR. Personally, I fail to see how these are all the same CR.
Vrock - 65% no summon
Vrock - summon another Vrock
Vrock - summon 2d10 Dretches
Those are all wildly different encounters. How can two Vrocks by the letter of the rules (arg...) be the same CR as one?
So, lets look at some of the Vrock's abilities:
Full Attack - 5 attacks with a good chance to hit!! for ~45 damage/round. This is 57% of my HP, but I only ever took 25dmg from attacks during the battle (see spores)
Dr 10/good - we could not bypass this
mirror image - Annoying, but persistence will get rid of it.
Spores - Oh. My. God. No save damage that stacks with itself. At one point, myself and the Half-Orc had three on each of us. I don't remember the total, but it did at least my full HP damage (3d8 + 30d4 = 88.5avg damage). We had none of the ways of getting rid of it at our disposal (or the knowledge checks to even know what they were).
Simply put, I think we were very outmatched. After we finally downed the guys, we spent several rounds round-robin passing the wand of CLW to stay alive from the spores. Lets look at some of the suggested CR/XP reward modifiers in the DMG.
Strictly by the rules - EL 9 = 720xp. I think the summon ability being "included" in the CR is a major oversight. As is the unresistable damage from spores.
multiple monsters (DMG p48) - double the number is +2 EL. EL 11 encounter would give 1440xp.
circumstance (p39/50) - the encounter was significantly more difficult, given our party makup and lack of any full casters. it also used a vast amount of party resources (we ended the session by resting for 2 whole days to regain our hp and such, but we also burned a ton of CLW charges). +1 EL = 12 EL = 1920xp
Location - the location favored the Vrocks, but we also used some poor tactics, so the modifiers cancel out.
As a DM, I would have given 2000xp.
If the encounter breaks down into a CR 9/6 like the DM said, we should get ~6,500gp of treasure. We got none. This is just part of a pattern of being horribly under-equipped for our level. My gear of note:
1800 hat of disguise
2000 amulet of nat armor +1
5000 mithral breastplate +1
2000 ring of protection +1
2000 haversack
900 MW Mighty (+5) longbow
a new hammer that the DM will not let me identify and which functions as masterwork that is supposedly worth 10,000gp...but doesn't do anything.
My wealth = 23,700gp. Expected level 8 wealth = 27,000gp. Ok, so not as far behind as I thought, but I think I have more than anyone else...and a 10,000gp hammer than cannot be identified and works as masterwork.
Maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion, but myself and the half-orc player were vocal about our disappointment in our reward, and I don't think the other two were happy either (they are newer players and don't know the DM as well as myself and the half-orc). Am I crazy? How do I approach my DM without him seeing this as an attack on his good DMing style? In the past, when I've tried to clarify rules disputes or say that something is illegal, he usually hand-waves me and does something else. I'm fine with house rules...as long as they are spelled out beforehand.
I usually give out less wealth if I use a high point buy or very favorable dice rolling method for stats for example. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion since the higher stats compensates the fact that you have slightly less gear.
As for the XP, it seems like you understand the rules on awarding xp but disagree with the actual rules. The fact that your DM gave out some xp for the summoned Vrock is evidence that your DM is aware that the rules don't normally allow him to do so. And he tossed in an extra 50% xp kicker (presumably due to the battlefield being in favor of the Vrocks).
What's the problem here? Your DM seemed to make a compromise of the "normal" xp rules in your favor and you want "more". You might think the "summon" rule is wonky but there is a % chance of failure. If you want to change the CR system, the "fairest" approach would be let summoned monsters count towards XP (thus gymping summoner specialists PCs and basically removing SNA and SM from the books since what player would use those spells if it means they will get less xp) or upping the original Vrock's CR and giving him a 100% chance of success to summon.
Another way to think of it is what if you were facing a bad guy Wizard. Lets say he has a Save or Die spell memorized. Best case scenario, the PC with the highest save would have a 50/50 chance of making the save. Does the Wizard bad guy's CR magicall goes up if that PC fails his save?
As for the CR system...yes, it is wonky and the DMG specifically gives guidelines for altering xp given based on actual difficulty. Here's a good example of its strangeness:
2nd level druid with a wolf animal companion = EL 2
2nd level druid with a random rabid wolf (who is guaranteed to be weaker than a companion) = EL 3
5th level wizard with all of his spells left = EL 5
5th level wizard who has used all of his spells = EL 5
Also, Cr ~= ECL. Many creatures have a CR lower than their ECL (see any high end dragon, demon, devil, angel, or the like.) It is self-contradicting.
A rust monster gives as much xp to a solo fighter as it does to a solo wizard...but the encounter is significantly more challenging for the fighter.
As to summoning - the 7th level wizard isn't summoning another 7th level wizard with spells of doom (cr 7)...he is summoning a fiendish dire wolf (cr 4). I do see your point, but how are two Vrocks the same CR as one?
As to his reward - he said he was giving us ((CR 9 + CR 6) * 150%)/5 = (3600 + 1200) * 1.5)/5 = 7200/5 = 1440.
He actually gave us 1040, which is close to
(CR 9 * 150%)/5 = 5400/5 = 1080
I don't mean to be a whiny little b*tch, but this is just the most recent example of his stinginess (is that a word?)
IMHO, awarding over 1000xp for one encounter for a level 8 party is already on the high end. xp for a cr9 encounter, level 8 party is 3600/4 or 900xp each.
That's already way too high, in my book. A single CR9 creature isn't that hard of a challenge for level 8 characters, and at that rate you'll go up in level after 8 or 9 such encounters. Guess I'm just very old-school about xp, but I prefer for characters to spend 3-4 gaming sessions at each experience level, on average.
The lack of loot is harder to guage. Somewhere along the adventure, it should average out. Presumably the big nasty dude who brought the vrock(s) to guard his keep has enough loot to make up for the shortfall on this encounter, so if you manage to finish the adventure you'll get your fair share of loot.
I just don't see grounds for griping about a stingy DM.
YMMV, --- Wheldrake
I understand that the wealth table is a guideline...but the CRs are based on the characters having Xgp of useful combat equipment. Counting that the hammer is effectively just masterwork means I have 14,000 gp of stuff, the same as a 6th level guy would have. The only treasure we have gotten as a party in the last two levels has been the hammer and ~4000gp of misc stuff we haven't been able to sell.
What point buy/dice rolling method did you use in creating your PCs? As I mentioned before, your DM may know about the guidelines and is intentionally being stingy whether because the PCs have higher stats that "normal" or because the campaign world itself is "lower magic" then the standard game.
In any event, talk to your DM about wealth if its a problem. At the very least, if you bring it to his attention, he may be bumping up the CRs for xp on monsters if he wants to keep you "under-wealthy" for your levels or will start giving out more gold/magic/stuff in the future until things start evening out.
As for the CR system...yes, it is wonky and the DMG specifically gives guidelines for altering xp given based on actual difficulty.
The CR system is far from perfect. But your apparent gripe about xp isn't that your DM is screwing you on XP. Your gripe is about how the DMG tells a DM to calculate xp. Its a rule created stinginess which your DM apparently did something about by awarding 50% more xp (whatever that 50% represented).
Personally, I eyeball CRs lately with all the powercreep that has come from supplemental books, I find the CRs on most monsters from the MM are too small while the CRs on monsters in later Monster Manuals might be too high in a "core" only campaign but just about "right" for a game that allows the multitude of supplements that are out there. But that's my personal style of DMing. When you run your own game, you can choose to ignore/follow whatever rules you want when you calculate CRs and xp for your players. Nothing you said about what your DM did sounds unusual to me. He gave you extra XP on top of the normal CR. If he really was strict, he could've just given you the xp for 1 Vrock with no xp adjustment and technically be within the rules.
I do see your point, but how are two Vrocks the same CR as one?
The CR of a vrock *includes* its summon ability. If you have two vrocks, and they *each* summon another one, that makes 4!
Note that the newly summoned vrock can't summon anything itself for something like an hour.
It's the same thing as a wizard PC or NPC - whether he uses fireball spells or summon monster spells, he'll still get the same xp or be worth the same xp.
The druid in your example can have an animal companion *and* summon other critters *and* probably have some trained wildlife at his beck and call as well. I'd give extra xp for the trained wolves, bears and so on, but not for the animal companion and the summoned critters.
About loot, tell your DM you need to find more loot, and then in character try to follow up on rumors of fabulous treasures. You'll also probably get more loot fighting CR9 humans (their gear) than fighting CR9 monsters. Pick your fights better!
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Also, not every fight has to have treasure involved. There are charts with about how much money one should get from an encounter, but they are guidelines and a bit unrealistic if you follow it strictly -- wolves with piles of jewelry and swords for instance. Part of the adventure building guidelines say that you can figure out the wealth the party is supposed to get for their level and spread it out in a logical way (or really however you want).
This means 3 fights might individually net you 300gp each, or 2 of the fights are worth nothing and the last is worth 900gp.
Additionally, some DMs (and some players) prefer a low-wealth or low-XP style of game. This is something you should ask before you join a new game, but you are fine to ask now. This is a playstyle issue, what works for some people doesn't work for everyone.
It doesn't sound to me like this is a low-XP style game, especially since he has gone above what was required to award XP and you only gave this one fight as an example. You currently seem to be in a low-wealth game, but you would have to know what the other players have.
About your hammer, if you can't use an Identify spell on it (I assume you tried because you say you couldn't identify it) you can try Legend Lore or researching the thing with Knowledge checks (with the help of NPC sages if necessary). It might be a Legacy weapon. Is there some strange feature it has, like a skull which cries blood? Look for something unusual about it compared to other "masterwork" weapons and detect for auras of magic with Detect Magic.
Honestly, you had a hard fight. This is not something unusual. By all expectations, your party should have reamed that Vrock, summoned ally or no. There are 6 of you, including the NPC Paladin (which was probably there to help, but I don't know the details). The DM is under no real obligation to custom tailor every encounter to suit your current party. I will concede that having spellcasters would have made that fight much easier, but there are other ways to fight than head-on. Maybe you could have used stealth and investigation to learn about the Vrock in advance and prepare better for it.
If you want more rewards for the CR 9 Vrock being tough for your particular party composition, then shouldn't any fight later in a day when the party has used up spells and resources also be worth more XP? That's not how the current system works.
Bring to his attention that you are concerned that you are falling behind the wealth-by-level guidelines and that you think it is adversely affecting your ability to function as a character. Once the DM is aware of those concerns (it helps if the other players also feel that way) then it is up to him whether he is intentionally keeping you low-wealth or not.
Sometimes, you will lose.
Personally, I think you were fortunate to eventually win this one, with only a cohort as a dedicated caster. Your DM generously upped your xp award because it was tougher for your party. Live with it.
After last night's session, I finally decided to post here for some advice. My DM is stingy. Specifically, he tends to *really* cheap out on XP and treasure. Now, don't get my wrong - he is a good DM and all - but his rewards tend to be lacking. So, here's the situation.
If the encounter breaks down into a CR 9/6 like the DM said, we should get ~6,500gp of treasure. We got none. This is just part of a pattern of being horribly under-equipped for our level. My gear of note:
1800 hat of disguise
2000 amulet of nat armor +1
5000 mithral breastplate +1
2000 ring of protection +1
2000 haversack
900 MW Mighty (+5) longbow
a new hammer that the DM will not let me identify and which functions as masterwork that is supposedly worth 10,000gp...but doesn't do anything.
My wealth = 23,700gp. Expected level 8 wealth = 27,000gp. Ok, so not as far behind as I thought, but I think I have more than anyone else...and a 10,000gp hammer than cannot be identified and works as masterwork.
Maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion, but myself and the half-orc player were vocal about our disappointment in our reward, and I don't think the other two were happy either (they are newer players and don't know the DM as well as myself and the half-orc). Am I crazy? How do I approach my DM without him seeing this as an attack on his good DMing style? In the past, when I've tried to clarify rules disputes or say that something is illegal, he usually hand-waves me and does something else. I'm fine with house rules...as long as they are spelled out beforehand.
Hmm, ask him if he means for this to be a low wealth campaign.
If he doesn't mean it to be than come back and tell us. Because that is when you worry.
That's not true for you, because perhaps your expectations have been violated.
I'm a hardcore rules lawyer
No argument, there. Your posts were somewhat bewildering, and full of icky maths.
You say your party couldn't handle the encounter. But they did, and if a PC died, I missed it for the calculations.
Carried gold by leval, as others have posted is the average for all encounters to the next level, so again, maybe there's huge pile at the end.
Sounds like you like to analyze the game. A lot. Your analysis tells you you got zero treasure and wanted some. Point blank, ask the DM, are we going by the DMG Carried gold chart? because I am seeing 14K GP worth of stuff here...what's the deal?
Then go with whatever they say in response.
Are you having fun? Certainly, If my group fought an encounter like that, we'd be high fives all around, a tough battle. To us, that's worth it, right there. Maybe not to you, and that's not wrong.
In the end, are you having fun? If not, there is a door to be exited via.
Good luck.
16th level and most players have less then 15k ( not a typo ) in wealth/items
Have to agree with most of prev posts, DM gave out more then the generally accepts XP value by providing for some XP on summoned critters.
For a party of 6 people, the CR 9 encounter/reward seems sufficient, despite the player/NPC performance which may have been a battlefield/luck result.
After re-reading my original posts, I came off a bit more whiny than I intended. This was a product of post-session dissatisfaction, a poor night's sleep, and the fact I had to go to work (was actually late cause I waited for an initial reply, heh).
On Our XP Reward
Per the rules I am so fond of following, the DM gave us more XP than deserved. Yay. I, however, find the CR/EL rules so inconsistent and self-contradictory at times that I, in my own opinion, disagree with the rules. I was looking for advice on how to present my view on the subject to the DM without it appearing to be an attack on his person, his opinion, or his DM-itude.
My View on the CR System (Disclaimer: opinion)
It is, in my experience as both player and DM over the last 5 years, completely useless in most cases. The difficulty of an encounter should not be determined by some static number based on an approximation of expected player/character ability, capability, or equipment. The difficulty of an encounter should be based purely on the actual party's ability to deal with an encounter. [ex - a Troll thrown at a party that does not have access to a source of acid/fire damage is "unwinnable"] This a more fluid system where you use CR (in lieu of anything better) to gauge an encounter in planning, but award XP based on actual difficulty. Now, there has to be a "reasonability" clause in there somewhere. If the party cannot defeat an encounter because a frivolous usage of a limited ability, or poor planning, or whatnot...tough. However, if the encounter is more difficult because the party simply does not have access to certain resources to overcome it, they should get more XP because that makes the encounter more difficult. In kind, if the party walks through an encounter because they had access to the Magical McGuffin That Kills All Foes, than the encounter wasn't a challenge and they should not receive as much XP. In the encounter with the Vrocks, for example, we were completely unable to overcome the DR 10/good, which left the two archer characters 90% useless. I think that this should factor in the difficulty. Here is the best illustration that I can think of:
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with full gear and all spells readied
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with no gear and all spells readied
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with full gear and no spells readied
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with no gear and no spells readied
By the rules, they are "identical" encounters with identical XP rewards. Think about that. Now, if the wizard is spell-less due to party actions/ingenuity, great!! Give them full XP. If you somehow randomly rolled a naked, spell-less 20th level wizard, however...he would be EL 2. Maybe.
On Party Reaction
Myself, the DM, and the Half-Orc have played together for about 5 years. For a long time, the Half-Orc was the only DM. I have run 4 games myself (longest was d20 Future that lasted a year or so). I believe that this is the current DM's second or third go in the director's chair. The gnome has about 4 years experience (but still doesn't know what a full-attack is, sigh...), and the dwarf has around 2 years of gaming under her belt, and has recently started her own campaign. Last session we played, we gained ~1000xp for defeating a group of bandits and saving "our" town. They were a total pushover. This session we got 1040xp...for a near-TPK. Both myself and the Half-Orc expressed dissatisfaction with the reward given, and I got a similar vibe from the others on our way back to the parking lot. I usually jokingly gripe about the lack of xp in a hunt for more...but this time, I strongly believe we deserve more.
On My Hammer
What happened was that during the bandit fight, a local boy died. My character was distraught (paladin-esque archetype) and left his expensive spear at the kid's grave. As a reward for this sacrifice and my construction of a new church to my god, the god sent the hammer to me. I know it isn't just masterwork, but knowledge (arcana) [the god is a dragon], knowledge (religion), and identify could not ID it. My main problem isn't the ID, but that you don't have to know a weapon is +5 to get +5atk and +5dmg.
On Loot in General
The DM has a habit of not giving us anything for several levels, then us getting a huge lump treasure. We started level 3 with 900gp each, gained maybe 2000gp as a party until level ~6 when we got (I think) 15,000 gp each, which put us above the guideline. We haven't gotten anything significant since then, which was 4 months ago. Not getting anything new for that long sucks no matter how you slice it. So, it isn't that we are behind in the long run (I trust him to pay us in future), but between those huge lump sums (costing months in real time) we are "weaker than we should be" and get no new interesting items.
In Summary
My opinion on XP rewards differs from that of my DM, and I think my party agrees. However, I do not want to involve them if this becomes some kind of issue or if they don't actually agree. My opinion on treasure differs also, in that I actually like my character to get some new gear more often than every 4 months. My DM tends to get defensive when challenged, and I want to present my opinion to the DM sans-insult. Any suggestions?
Whew...I hope that helps.
Per the rules I am so fond of following, the DM gave us more XP than deserved. Yay. I, however, find the CR/EL rules so inconsistent and self-contradictory at times that I, in my own opinion, disagree with the rules. I was looking for advice on how to present my view on the subject to the DM without it appearing to be an attack on his person, his opinion, or his DM-itude.
Well, coming here and calling him stingy isn't the best way to accomplish this; neither is slandering him in the parking lot after every session because he happens to be following the rules as they regard to XP - or fudging the rules in your favor!
As for your rules of the CR system, who cares? I mean really, your opinions of the XP rules really have nothing to do with the way your DM handled the last session nor should they have anything to do with the way your DM handles the XP in HIS campaign. If you think there are better ways to do it, then great, use your method in your campaign, but out of respect to the current DM who isn't so miffed by the book rules, put a sock in it while he's running his game.
So, if you and the half-orc are the two most experienced players then why don't you two stop being the source of all your DM's annoyances? Try telling the other players that xp and treasure are very minor components that go into making D&D fun. I feel bad for your DM; when I DM I value my experienced players (though I guess that 5 years doesn't really constitute an experienced player) because they create a very posative atmosphere for the less experienced gamers. You two are the ring leaders for this poor dude's problems. Do him a favor and leave rather than faulting him for the fact that you disagree with a book rule.
So, he gave you what sounds like some uber hammer gifted by a God and you are still here whining about your treasure totals?! When he hands out treasure put your friggen calculator away; stop nit-picking and keeping a tally and relax. Enjoy the game and get over these petty issues. Perhaps the hammer's magic needs to be awoken in some way before it's magik kicks in, or maybe the DM is secretly adding the weapon's bonuses after you tell him your rolls. Did you expect him to say "It's a +3 holy, undead bane warhammer" after you've taken one or two hacks with it?
You have never responded to the question put to you by several people already: What sort of starting stats did the DM give you? If your group was awarded a generous stat generating system then that might have something to do with the amount of loot. Or maybe the guy is just running a less monty-haul type game, not sure why you're faulting him there. Once again, it's his game, try enjoying it for the stories he's crafting or the roleplaying opportunities you and the other players have rather than b!tching, moaning and whining in between treasure and XP awards.
In summary, I can understand why your DM is defensive, I get the impression that you don't complain a little bit or every now and then. Sounds like you will have a gripe about most anything that pops up in a game. The chronic whiner.
I can't stress it enough that you should look for other sources of enjoyment in D&D other than Treas and xp; if that's it for you then you're better off hopping onto WoW.
On the encounter: You lack a PC full caster. That is gonna hurt. You have a Half-Orc (weak race with a -2 Int) playing a Warblade. You are playing a Bard (weak) Dragon Disciple (weaker) with one level of Barbarian and calling yourself a tank. You have d6's for half your HD for Nerull's sake. The rogue you readily admit doesn't contribute to combat well. The only character that actually can pull his weight is the Swift Hunter. No wonder you guys are getting the stuffing kicked out of you. The DM is guilty of not realizing your party is weaker than an iconic four and planning accordingly. You said yourself you walked all over a previous encounter and he wanted to make sure you had something that challenged you. He went too far, or maybe he just didn't realize how nasty the Vrock could get.
Then, you tell us you have a magic item granted by a god, that you can't use well. However, you GAVE away your primary weapon. Of course you are behind on gold and performance, you gave away your only way to contribute. The DM was nice enough to give you something important to the story as compensation, but you seem to think you can leave your crap laying around and he is just going to replace it. Doesn't work like that. Did you spend your money to construct this church? There is more money you lost. How exactly does leaving your spear do anything for the kid anyway? Don't go ragging on the DM when you throw your cash away.
You also haven't finished the adventure. Perhaps you just have to find the treasure vault?
If you actually want to discuss it with him my advice is not say everything you have typed here. You have attacked pretty much every aspect of your DM's style, and knocked on your fellow players too. Start out by asking him how he thinks the game is going. Maybe he is frustrated like you. Maybe you missed some treasures. Get his opinions, then give him your own. Tell him politely that you think your party needs some new gear. If he gets defensive, tell him you enjoy his game, but that you just want to offer some suggestions THAT HE IS FREE TO DISREGARD. Then, give him a few sessions to put things together. He won't just shower your PC's with gold from the sky. If things don't change after a while, then find a new group. Really though, you can't leave your most expensive item on some random NPC grave and turn around and complain about money.
Mostly, you are complaining about the system. If you discuss the system, you are best off. Finally, DM's have the right to be stingy. You have the right to ask for more, and then leave.
Just got back from work and I think we have some misunderstanding here, so let's see if I can tackle at least some of it.
After re-reading my original posts, I came off a bit more whiny than I intended. This was a product of post-session dissatisfaction, a poor night's sleep, and the fact I had to go to work (was actually late cause I waited for an initial reply, heh).
On Our XP Reward
Per the rules I am so fond of following, the DM gave us more XP than deserved. Yay. I, however, find the CR/EL rules so inconsistent and self-contradictory at times that I, in my own opinion, disagree with the rules. I was looking for advice on how to present my view on the subject to the DM without it appearing to be an attack on his person, his opinion, or his DM-itude.
My View on the CR System (Disclaimer: opinion)
It is, in my experience as both player and DM over the last 5 years, completely useless in most cases. The difficulty of an encounter should not be determined by some static number based on an approximation of expected player/character ability, capability, or equipment. The difficulty of an encounter should be based purely on the actual party's ability to deal with an encounter. [ex - a Troll thrown at a party that does not have access to a source of acid/fire damage is "unwinnable"] This a more fluid system where you use CR (in lieu of anything better) to gauge an encounter in planning, but award XP based on actual difficulty. Now, there has to be a "reasonability" clause in there somewhere. If the party cannot defeat an encounter because a frivolous usage of a limited ability, or poor planning, or whatnot...tough. However, if the encounter is more difficult because the party simply does not have access to certain resources to overcome it, they should get more XP because that makes the encounter more difficult. In kind, if the party walks through an encounter because they had access to the Magical McGuffin That Kills All Foes, than the encounter wasn't a challenge and they should not receive as much XP. In the encounter with the Vrocks, for example, we were completely unable to overcome the DR 10/good, which left the two archer characters 90% useless. I think that this should factor in the difficulty. Here is the best illustration that I can think of:
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with full gear and all spells readied
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with no gear and all spells readied
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with full gear and no spells readied
EL 20 - 20th level wizard with no gear and no spells readied
By the rules, they are "identical" encounters with identical XP rewards. Think about that. Now, if the wizard is spell-less due to party actions/ingenuity, great!! Give them full XP. If you somehow randomly rolled a naked, spell-less 20th level wizard, however...he would be EL 2. Maybe.
Actually, the DM is free to amend the CR as he sees fit depending on the circumstances of the encounter - sadly, few guidelines are given for this, but looking at the above I would say:
EL 22 - 20th level wizard with full gear and all spells readied, prepped for dealing with the party.
EL 19 - 20th level wizard with no gear and all spells readied
EL 15 - 20th level wizard with full gear and no spells readied
EL 10 - 20th level wizard with no gear and no spells readied
The point here is that if it's clear that the encounter is tougher or easier than it should have been you get more or less XP. Your DM is doing this, and your main issue seems to be that you aren't getting what you want, when you want it, how you want it. The question now is, is this because he's a bad DM or because you're a bad player?
The CR system, while certainly not perfect, is based on the assumption that your party has arranged itself to have a certain effectiveness in all areas. Areas you are well prepared for will be easier, and areas you are ill prepared for will be harder.
If you have no Rogues, Traps are a lot more dangerous. But, if you have all Rogues, you are not likely to stumble into Traps much at all. The CR system basically says, "Well, maybe they are perfectly balanced in all respects, or are really good in this one area, and bad in another, but it all sort of equals out."
Your party is supposed to encounter all sorts of challenges, including both the ones you are really good at and ones you are really bad at. The DM is encouraged to know what his party is capable of, but sometimes you guess wrong.
For instance, if that Paladin was fully functional, he could have been Smiting Evil. If your party had a supply of Potions of Bless Weapon or Scrolls/Wands of Dispel Magic, that fight could have been over in a couple of rounds.
Should that Vrock be worth less XP if you are more prepared for that particular challenge, or is it just a Vrock who exists whether your party goes to fight it or not? Should XP change based on the number of lucky or unlucky rolls on the part of the players or monsters? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the CR system is the way 3rd edition draws the line while somewhat considering parties of differing levels.
Is the CR system complicated and frequently "wrong"? Sure. It's just a tool really. The other options are to have the DM award XP as he sees fit in any situation, which he certainly has the option of doing, or else to just inform you when to level up your characters. Usually the CR system is used as the guideline that it is, and is modified by the DM. Your DM has already done that.
Personally, I like the idea that a party with absolutely no cold attacks or energy resistance fighting a red dragon gets the same XP as a party loaded up with fire resistance and Icy Burst weapons. It means that based on player actions, your adventures can go better or worse without having to rely purely on luck. It is part of the challenge of the game to overcome ... challenges. (This assumes the dragon was in some way established as part of the world and not completely arbitrarily thrown in as a random encounter when the party was half dead).
If you look back on that Vrock fight, and there was utterly nothing your party could have done to have it turn out better no matter what they tried, then it was a poorly built and unfair encounter. If there is room for saying, "Well, if we had gone into the room with the pillars then..." or, "If only we used our spells on the smaller guy first then..." or, "If we had tried bargaining first then..." then it was a challenge which, though difficult, was overcome by your heroic deeds and actions rather than the DM deciding the outcome in advance.
Honestly, I respect your opinion that the CR system is imperfect. If you want to have a game run with a certain kind of house rule though, then you would have to try and start that game up yourself or present your argument in a very well thought out and comprehensive manner which all the players agree with.
I'd just like to say you can in fact kill a troll without fire or acid. Beat it down into the negatives, and behead it. Or dig a hole, put its head in facedown, and cast create water once safely KOed. There you go.
I don't think the beheading part would work, but you certainly can suffocate them to death.
If you have no fire or acid, then it just means you have to be a bit more creative. First of all, you beat it to negatives. After that, one or two PCs stick around and continue pounding on the body every round or so, while the rest go look for some wood that'll burn. If you don't have Flint and Steel... well hopefully you can make a decent survival check.
I see what you're saying about the size/difficulty of the encounter "doubling" but it IS accounted for already. As stated by others repeatedly, despite the fact that summoning abilities can double the number of opponents (even of the same CR) that capability WAS CONSIDERED in setting that creatures CR. If you were going to decide otherwise then by rights you would have to REDUCE the CR of those Vrocks when that capability was no longer factored into their CR.
For this particular encounter you've got five lvl 8 pc's and a lvl 6 cohort. Maybe underequipped a bit but the party size is over the standard of four so call that a wash just for discussion. CR 9 opponent but you mentioned tight quarters or something for the fight limiting the PC's so call it an EL 10 encounter. This puts it into the category of what the DMG lists as "very difficult (EL 1-4 higher than party level) which is described as "one party member may well die and might be more dangerous than an overpowering encounter because it may not be immediately obvious that the party should flee."
You say you used up every ounce of your resources in this fight so I get the idea that either your party is actually rather weaker in combat than might be suggested, your tactics are lacking, or the DM is overplaying something, or is rather more effective at running monsters (or perhaps just this one). In any case something more would seem to have been working against you here. But it still doesn't change the fact that TWO Vrocks in that combat are indeed taken into consideration in the CR 9 value for JUST ONE of them and the DM seems generous to be giving additional xp.
This is really no different than an NPC encounter not increasing in effective level just because an 9th level NPC spellcaster summons a fiendish critter with a spell rather than a spell-like ability. That capability of summoning is factored into the NPC spellcasters CR. Even if he doesn't know the spell to do it his spellcasting levels give him the equivalent power that is accounted for in the CR. The Vrocks summoning ability is accounted for in the package of demon abilities that all goes along with its CR.
By rights, if you feel that the CR 9 is just too low even with the 65% failure chance on that summoning, then your best argument is for bumping the Vrocks CR to 10, not to start assuming that summoned creatures alter the entire EL calculation of the encounter. But then the DM nonetheless DID award additional xp. Honestly I don't think you have a basis for complaint - at least not about the system of CR and xp awards.
1) A player has a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide.
2) A player has a copy of a Monster Manual.
If you want to play assistant DM, you should retire your character and move to the other side of the screen.
There are two major problems at the root of your argument.
1) A player has a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide.
2) A player has a copy of a Monster Manual.
If you want to play assistant DM, you should retire your character and move to the other side of the screen.
The player having other issues is the problem. I had a similar fight recently in a printed campaign module(won't say which due to spoilers), and the fight was annoying and time consuming, but not deadly. There is nothing wrong with having an MM or DMG as long as he realizes those books are guidelines and the DM can change any monster he sees as fit, among other things.
Myself, Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Dragon Disciple 3
- defensive tank that still packs a punch
Half-Orc Fighter/Warblade (level 8)
- offensive melee
Human? Cleric 6
- the Half-Orc's cohort
Dwarf Scout 4/Ranger 4
- Swift Hunter archer
Halfling Rogue (wilderness variant from arcana) 8
- party skills-guy, but pretty useless in a fight
NPC Paladin 8
- spent most of the time bleeding on the floor consuming our healing
As you can see...we aren't exactly powerful. For the battle, here are the approximate results. I used everything I had, except 2 bardic music uses and my 0 level spells, and lost at least ~130% max HP. The half-orc was unable to do much of anything due to the battlefield layout (ie - no maneuvers used), but he lost more HP than I did overall. The cleric used all of his spells (save level 0), and lost at least his full HP. The hunter was fairly unscathed, actually. The rogue almost bought it when one of the Vrocks flew to where he was and pummeled him (it was difficult for the rest of us to get to him).
The battle could have been hard due to bad dice rolls or bad tactics, but you don't get XP based on how hard the encounter was, you get XP based on how hard it should have been, and the Vrock is not that hard unless that are a lot of them.
Those are all wildly different encounters. How can two Vrocks by the letter of the rules (arg...) be the same CR as one?
The CR is based on the abilities that could be use, not on what is used, and another thing is the CR does not changed based on party composition. If you would have had an arcane caster(not the bard), the fight would have been much easier, so either someone can play a caster since the CR's are assumed with the melee guy, skills guy, healer, and arcane guy in mind, or just accept that you will have a harder time than normal.
after edit: You are right there are circumstance that can change an EL, but I don't think this one qualifies without more info on the battle, but it is worth nowhere near 2000 XP.
Strictly by the rules - EL 9 = 720xp. I think the summon ability being "included" in the CR is a major oversight. As is the unresistable damage from spores.
multiple monsters (DMG p48) - double the number is +2 EL. EL 11 encounter would give 1440xp.
You did not fight two Vrock, and if you want to get XP for two Vrocks then you should fight two Vrock that can summon other demons
circumstance (p39/50) - the encounter was significantly more difficult, given our party makup and lack of any full casters. it also used a vast amount of party resources (we ended the session by resting for 2 whole days to regain our hp and such, but we also burned a ton of CLW charges). +1 EL = 12 EL = 1920xp
Location - the location favored the Vrocks, but we also used some poor tactics, so the modifiers cancel out.
As a DM, I would have given 2000xp.
Were the Vrocks flying. I thought I saw you say that you were in an enclosed area. They would have been better off outside where they could spore you all day without getting hit, and why was the warblade not laying the smack down as soon as the Vrock was identified.
You will not always have the amount of treasure in the DMG. Sometimes it will be over or under, and as far as being unequipped(all the time), which is how you are making it sound you may have to speak to your DM about it. I would like for you to invite him here.
a new hammer that the DM will not let me identify and which functions as masterwork that is supposedly worth 10,000gp...but doesn't do anything.
How did you find out how much it is worth if you can't identify it, and why does the identify spell not work?
My wealth = 23,700gp. Expected level 8 wealth = 27,000gp. Ok, so not as far behind as I thought, but I think I have more than anyone else...and a 10,000gp hammer than cannot be identified and works as masterwork.
Maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion, but myself and the half-orc player were vocal about our disappointment in our reward, and I don't think the other two were happy either (they are newer players and don't know the DM as well as myself and the half-orc). Am I crazy? How do I approach my DM without him seeing this as an attack on his good DMing style? In the past, when I've tried to clarify rules disputes or say that something is illegal, he usually hand-waves me and does something else. I'm fine with house rules...as long as they are spelled out beforehand.
If your DM has issues with the rules then talk to him after the game. There may have been special circumstances that made the rule invalid, but he could not tell you because it might give you knowledge you are not supposed to have. He should at least say it is campaign/adventure specific, even if he can't tell you the exact reason the rule(s) were overlooked.
The house rules beforehand is something I always ask for also, and it keeps everyone honest. If he never bothers to explain why/how things happen then maybe it is time to get a new DM, but talking to him should be done first.
The DM's concept of character development speed and wealth, and the campaign development as a whole. The expectation, which you've related, simply doesn't match the DM's. Talk to him, as prev stated.
Plus keep in mind that stuff happens in a game, and it can be difficult to judge just how tough an encounter is. CR system is a general guide DM thought that you could handle that encounter, which in fact you did but it was a close fight, if i'm reading it right. Future encounters may be influenced by how difficult that fight was, when judging if the party should take on a certain CR, which is not a perfect.
What is?
Not going to get into the rules/house rules thing as I've seen games played for years based off incorrect interpretations.
My wealth = 23,700gp. Expected level 8 wealth = 27,000gp. Ok, so not as far behind as I thought, but I think I have more than anyone else...and a 10,000gp hammer than cannot be identified and works as masterwork.
Then logically, it should be an artifact. Though that doesn't really explain why Knowledge checks wouldn't get it. You should have been able to pick it up using Bardic Knowledge. And it should regardless act as if it is a magic item as you said, identifying something doesn't suddenly make it magic - this isn't some video game with programming problems. Though it being an artifact may be the cause of that. A Scroll of Legend Lore may work. Maybe.
The DM controls the treasure; the only wealth he has to give you is whatever opponents were actually wielding. The DM has to give you some number of xp, but it can be modified to suit his whims.
You have never responded to the question put to you by several people already: What sort of starting stats did the DM give you?
Dag, I appreciate your insightful advice and total lack of hostility. (/end sarcasm). 4d6 drop lowest. I did well, others did not.
On the encounter: You lack a PC full caster. That is gonna hurt. You have a Half-Orc (weak race with a -2 Int) playing a Warblade. You are playing a Bard (weak) Dragon Disciple (weaker) with one level of Barbarian and calling yourself a tank. You have d6's for half your HD for Nerull's sake. The rogue you readily admit doesn't contribute to combat well. The only character that actually can pull his weight is the Swift Hunter. No wonder you guys are getting the stuffing kicked out of you.
Yeah, I know. As much as I enjoy optimizing in my spare time, I rarely play a powerful build (examples - half-elf sorcerer, a ton of twf dex-monkeys, a psionic warrior).
Then, you tell us you have a magic item granted by a god, that you can't use well. However, you GAVE away your primary weapon. Of course you are behind on gold and performance, you gave away your only way to contribute. The DM was nice enough to give you something important to the story as compensation, but you seem to think you can leave your crap laying around and he is just going to replace it. Doesn't work like that. Did you spend your money to construct this church? There is more money you lost. How exactly does leaving your spear do anything for the kid anyway? Don't go ragging on the DM when you throw your cash away.
Yes, I know I gave away my good weapon/cash for my deity. Gygax help us, a player is actually spending cash for something insubstantial!!! He gave me the hammer (unrequested), and said it was worth roughly the amount I have given to my god's cause ~10,000gp. Nowhere did I complain about my hammer, I was looking for suggestions to ID it. My loot complaint wasn't that we didn't have enough stuff...it was that we went for four months without getting a thing. I want to suggest that he spread our treasure out in smaller amounts instead of one lump sum.
Get his opinions, then give him your own...If he gets defensive, tell him you enjoy his game, but that you just want to offer some suggestions THAT HE IS FREE TO DISREGARD.
That is precisely what I am looking to do. I want to approach him and present my opinion and let him take it (or not) from there. My suggestions would make the game a bit more enjoyable for me, is that such a bad thing to want? We all play this game to have fun, but being dissatisfied just because of some notion of "this is the DM's game" is silly. This is our game - the group's and the DM's. Everyone should have fun.
The DM is free to make any crazy rules he likes, and the players are free to walk. Why shouldn't we talk and try to get everyone at the same "fun level" instead?
If you have no Rogues, Traps are a lot more dangerous. But, if you have all Rogues, you are not likely to stumble into Traps much at all. The CR system basically says, "Well, maybe they are perfectly balanced in all respects, or are really good in this one area, and bad in another, but it all sort of equals out."
If you have no rogues, traps are more dangerous...hence more challenging. Having no rogues is also a player decision, not a character decision. I shouldn't be "forced" to play a wizard/druid/rogue/fighter if I don't want to.
As to your assertion of CR being based on an outside view of the presumed character capability, I agree. XP awarded should, however, be based on actual difficulty during play. See example:
lvl 1 commoner puts 1,000,000 cr 1/10 toads in a sealed building and lights it on fire, killing them all. Should he get XP for all of them? No - this was not a challenge.
lvl 1 commoner fights 1,000,000 cr 1/10 toads in an arena, and kills them all. Should he get XP for all of them? Yes - this was a challenge.
Now if the toads were intelligent, and the commoner somehow tricked them into the building, then he gets XP for overcoming the challenge. This presumes he just purchased them.
If the encounter is easy/hard due to character decisions, that should not change the XP. If is is easy/hard due to player decisions, it should change the XP.
The player having other issues is the problem. I had a similar fight recently in a printed campaign module(won't say which due to spoilers), and the fight was annoying and time consuming, but not deadly. There is nothing wrong with having an MM or DMG as long as he realizes those books are guidelines and the DM can change any monster he sees as fit, among other things.
I never look at the MM during play, unless I am running a creature (perhaps a summon or somesuch) or have an exceedingly high knowledge check. The same goes for the DMG, I only open it during play to check a rule when there is confusion on how something works. There have been many a time when I have been forced to use what I knew to be ineffective tactics because I know things my character doesn't.
The CR is based on the abilities that could be use, not on what is used, and another thing is the CR does not changed based on party composition. If you would have had an arcane caster(not the bard), the fight would have been much easier, so either someone can play a caster since the CR's are assumed with the melee guy, skills guy, healer, and arcane guy in mind, or just accept that you will have a harder time than normal.
True, CR is independent of party composition. Difficulty (which XP is a derivation of), however, is decidedly not. As above, why should players be "forced" to play the iconic four to be in line of expected ability (which CR is a derivation of)?
The DM's concept of character development speed and wealth, and the campaign development as a whole. The expectation, which you've related, simply doesn't match the DM's.
This may be the core of the problem, but I don't believe so. When he is a player, his characters typically greatly overshadow everyone else's in all measurable terms.
I have run games that people had a lot of fun in that had very little equipment change, as well as a sudden loot burst(in one case a brand new giant mecha made out of metal teeming with magic and blessed by a goddess. The game crossed genres a lot), so I know personally that the DMs style works for some people. I hate to make what is almost a personal attack on you, but you need to understand that, frankly it is a miracle that the DM hasn't kicked you out of the game yet, and you should be thankful. Secondly, its a game. Relax, and stop taking it so seriously. If you want the DM to change his campaign a bit at least stop griping for a few sessions, complement him on whats good, and then say it. Very politely, starting with how you love most of the game and are glad to have him as a DM, then saying that it would be nice for him to make things a little easier, and give out a little treasure because you guys accidentally made weak characters, then maybe handing him a couple monsters or something that you made(which might be equipped with weapons that you want. A bit underhanded, but as a DM I personally like it when players do this. In other systems where I can create a totally new monster on the fly during the game, not so much), and saying that if he or she wants to use them he or she can.
Also consider bringing snacks to share with everyone, including the DM during the couple of sessions before you do this.
Then logically, it should be an artifact. Though that doesn't really explain why Knowledge checks wouldn't get it. You should have been able to pick it up using Bardic Knowledge. And it should regardless act as if it is a magic item as you said, identifying something doesn't suddenly make it magic - this isn't some video game with programming problems. Though it being an artifact may be the cause of that. A Scroll of Legend Lore may work. Maybe.
That was the OP's statement. I meant to put it in the quotation box, but I put the code in the wrong place.
Sorry about the misplace code
On a side note, the Vrocks a bility cant be covered by its CR, because either is summons another of its kin and the enounter becomes harder, or it fails and the encounter becomes slightly easier (since the vrock wasted an action)
I am not saying you have to play the iconic four, but if you leave an area unaccounted for, be prepared to deal with the consequences. You don't get more XP for making a compromised party. As a DM I will thrown in an NPC to help my players, but my last DM did no such thing, and players should not expect to get more XP if the characters created don't fill the roles and/or if they use poor tactics(not an accusation).
If this is a premade(from the store) adventure then the DM should have told you what would be needed, but if not, and one of your PC's dies then that player should fill in the gap.
Here is a (bad) real world example: You want to form a baseball team and win the World Series. You choose the best and brightest athletes from around the world, all of whom are well above average in abilities. However, you decided that your team will only consist of really, really good outfielders and basemen (meaning you have no good pitchers or batters). Should the MBA give your team a handicap of a few free runs at the end of each game because your team was not very capable of handling every position and lost easily?
In an adventuring party, you have to recognize your weaknesses and try to compensate for them through multiclassing, proper equipment, or hirelings. Or, you can just accept that some challenges will be very challenging.
It is really up to the DM to tailor-make the game world to fit the party more than anything. This goes to the game style of "Status Quo" vs. "Tailored" encounters and game worlds. I believe this concept is described in the DMG.
In "Status Quo" the world exists independently from the adventurers -- if you wander into a cave, you might just find an ornery dragon 10 levels higher than your whole party put together. If you die, tough, you shouldn't have gone in there.
In "Tailored" worlds, the party generally won't come across anything they aren't supposed to. If there is a dragon around that the party encounters, he is almost certainly there for a non-combat role. The monsters and quests you go on are all relative to your party level.
Often games are a mixture of both, though there is a heavy lean toward "Tailored" for most groups. Part of being tailored means that the DM makes a world which conforms to the party more than forcing the party to conform to the world.
If I tailor an encounter for my players, who have no Rogues amongst them, then my adventures will have them going to places with few if any Traps, and very few that are seriously dangerous. That's because I know they can't really handle the traps easily, so I don't put them in. If I tailor it heavily, then they would never encounter a trap, and only face things they are inherently good at handling (or bad at handling, if that is my goal to beat them for some reason).
Your DM seems to be tailoring the world around your party a fair amount, given the situation (though I really have little to go on here). You were fighting a creature that supposedly should have been not all that hard, but it turned out to be hard. So he guessed wrong about your level of preparedness or how the fight would play out. Maybe it was intended as a message that you should prepare for that kind of fight a bit more, so that he can throw more "interesting" encounters at you in the future?
About your frog example: If the commoner "defeats" the frog swarm then he should get full XP. Unfortunately that sort of encounter is so far beneath him he wouldn't get any. If he literally takes them one at a time and throws them into a house soaked in kerosine, then that isn't really a challenge I agree. The reason it isn't a challenge is because the commoner faces no appreciable personal risk and has no real consequence for failure. Even if he jumps in an arena with them, the frogs won't fight back.
An example of a challenge would be, "You, commoner! If you can successfully get rid of my pet giant toad I shall give you 5 gold coins!" If the commoner defeats the toad in any way he completes the encounter. The commoner could try that house trick, luring the giant toad into a house and then escaping and setting it on fire. Or he could try fighting the toad straight out, probably dying but maybe he could win. Or, he could run off to the apothecary, steal some alchemist's fire and kill the toad that way. Or, he could try to entice it with food to jump into a crate, which is then closed and locked -- toad can be killed or sent away at leisure. In any of these cases, the toad is gone. Challenge completed.
If the Commoner wants to start fighting hand to hand with his wooden spoon then getting rid of that toad will be a hell of a lot harder than any other method presented. Should the commoner get more XP if he wins that way as opposed to another way? Just because the commoner decides to be "brave" or is just stupid doesn't mean he did any better of a job at "getting rid of the giant toad".
EDIT: If XP was awarded for "effort", something pretty hard to define, then you could have level 5 adventurers leveling up after a single fight with a handful of default MM goblins. The fight could have gone horribly for the PCs, maybe they missed all their attacks, failed all their skill checks, decided that they should fight with their eyes closed the entire time, whatever. If they get XP based on how hard something "turned out to be" then there would be random numbers of encounters each level, and it would be wholly subject to what the DM feels was the level of "difficulty" presented in any given fight.
If you are a Wizard and prepare Phantasmal Killer, and you roll high on initiative, go first, and the BBEG fails his save and just flat out dies in the first action of the first round, would you demand that your party be rewarded less XP because the fight went over so flawlessly?
That is precisely what I am looking to do. I want to approach him and present my opinion and let him take it (or not) from there. My suggestions would make the game a bit more enjoyable for me, is that such a bad thing to want? We all play this game to have fun, but being dissatisfied just because of some notion of "this is the DM's game" is silly. This is our game - the group's and the DM's. Everyone should have fun.
Very true, this is the bottom line. Everybody should have fun.
The amount of XP awards and loot you find shouldn't matter. And players shouldn't be consulting the DMG or the monster manual during a gaming session, period. Why even try to second guess the DM's decision regarding rewards? Just have fun.
Sure, talk to the DM, share your ideas, even share your concern about 4 months spent without finding any decent loot. If your DM is any good, he'll listen carefully and take your comments into consideration in the course of future events. He may even let you in on some OOC secrets that explain *why* you haven't found any loot in the last four months. Maybe you missed the secret door where the loot was stashed. Maybe you stopped the adventure before reaching the end. Maybe you fought critters that don't use any gear you can reclaim. There might be reasons for this.
Bottom line: you had a tough fight where everyone invested 100% of themselves to survive, and you survived. I bet that was a lot of fun. That's the name of the game.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Rules lawyers who question DM decisions give rules lawyers a bad name. As a player, and a DM I know that sometimes DM's need to make adjustments according to whatever they feel like. So deal with it, or find another DM.
No a rules lawyer who complains that the DM isn't giving enough exp when he got 500 more exp then he should have by the rules isn't a rules lawyer. That's what we call a whiny B**ch. I REAL rules lawyer would be complaining that he got 500 more exp then he should have.
Very true, this is the bottom line. Everybody should have fun.
Agreed heartily.
The amount of XP awards and loot you find shouldn't matter.
Except that it DOES matter. Directly. Part of the fun of the game is (usually anyway) seeing the PC's succeed, improve, and PROFIT in-game from what they do. If the DM tells the players at the start of the campaign, "Your PC's will never advance and only gain minimal profits from adventuring," the attitudes and expectations of the players are going to be VASTLY different than if no such statement is made. Then the players have every reason to expect fairly regularly paced awards for their PC's of "normal" amounts of xp, magic, and cash.
nd players shouldn't be consulting the DMG or the monster manual during a gaming session, period. Why even try to second guess the DM's decision regarding rewards? Just have fun.
Well, regarding the xp I can see where he might have thought he'd discovered a gap in the system, though in fact none existed and he's got no real cause for complaint. But if, as it now seems, the DM has given out no treasure for many sessions then I can understand how the OP could be getting annoyed - or at least having the envelope of his definition of "fun" being pushed.
If all other things were equal, yes, "just have fun," would apply. But all other things are NOT equal it appears.
Bottom line: you had a tough fight where everyone invested 100% of themselves to survive, and you survived. I bet that was a lot of fun. That's the name of the game.
It's certainly not ALL there is to the game, or at least not for EVERYONE.
Rules lawyers who question DM decisions give rules lawyers a bad name. As a player, and a DM I know that sometimes DM's need to make adjustments according to whatever they feel like. So deal with it, or find another DM.
NO! It is not a situation of DEAL with it or WALK. It is a situation - again - where players need to TALK to the DM DAMMIT! WHY DO PEOPLE NOT GET THIS?
There is no sacred wall of mystery that must seperate DM's from players. It is not a crime for players to want to read, understand and follow rules in the DMG, much less to ACTUALLY read the DMG and then wonder why the game their playing differs from what it suggests. (Holding the MM up as sacred text is rather going too far on the other hand...) Players have every right (in appropriate times and places) not to tell a DM that he must rule this way or that but to simply ask WHY he rules the way he does; just how does he calculate xp, why the PC's haven't gotten any cash for several game sessions, why an NPC acted a certain way, why there are no mutant ninja monk assassin dinosaurs. This doesn't mean that the DM has any obligation to divulge every secret he has for his game world but then all he has to do is reply, "It's a secret." But in the meantime the DM then knows what the players are thinking about and concerned about (possibly quite legitimately because DM's are not perfect, now are they?) and players are then satisfied that their concerns and interests are KNOWN to the DM.
It is NEVER a matter of take only what you're given and ASK NO QUESTIONS, or go away. While I have no trouble offering advice and opinion to posters the FIRST persons they should ALWAYS talk to is the people at their game table - players talking to DM's, DM's talking to their players. COMMUNICATE.
After last night's session, I finally decided to post here for some advice. My DM is stingy. Specifically, he tends to *really* cheap out on XP and treasure. Now, don't get my wrong - he is a good DM and all - but his rewards tend to be lacking. So, here's the situation.
We track down a Paladin friend of ours at a town that has been burned during some evil ritual and agree to go help him find the BBEG. While exploring the main room in the small keep, we are attacked by a Vrock...that summoned another Vrock. The Party:
Myself, Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Dragon Disciple 3
- defensive tank that still packs a punch
Half-Orc Fighter/Warblade (level 8)
- offensive melee
Human? Cleric 6
- the Half-Orc's cohort
Dwarf Scout 4/Ranger 4
- Swift Hunter archer
Halfling Rogue (wilderness variant from arcana) 8
- party skills-guy, but pretty useless in a fight
NPC Paladin 8
- spent most of the time bleeding on the floor consuming our healing
As you can see...we aren't exactly powerful. For the battle, here are the approximate results. I used everything I had, except 2 bardic music uses and my 0 level spells, and lost at least ~130% max HP. The half-orc was unable to do much of anything due to the battlefield layout (ie - no maneuvers used), but he lost more HP than I did overall. The cleric used all of his spells (save level 0), and lost at least his full HP. The hunter was fairly unscathed, actually. The rogue almost bought it when one of the Vrocks flew to where he was and pummeled him (it was difficult for the rest of us to get to him).
Total reward - 1040xp each, 0gp
His ruling - Vrock A was CR 9, Vrock B was CR 6 (because it was summoned), then he gave us 150% xp. Yes, I know that equates to ~1440xp, but whatever.
Now, by the book (I'm a hardcore rules lawyer...level playing field for all!), the summoned Vrock is "included" in the first Vrock's CR. Personally, I fail to see how these are all the same CR.
Vrock - 65% no summon
Vrock - summon another Vrock
Vrock - summon 2d10 Dretches
Those are all wildly different encounters. How can two Vrocks by the letter of the rules (arg...) be the same CR as one?
So, lets look at some of the Vrock's abilities:
Full Attack - 5 attacks with a good chance to hit!! for ~45 damage/round. This is 57% of my HP, but I only ever took 25dmg from attacks during the battle (see spores)
Dr 10/good - we could not bypass this
mirror image - Annoying, but persistence will get rid of it.
Spores - Oh. My. God. No save damage that stacks with itself. At one point, myself and the Half-Orc had three on each of us. I don't remember the total, but it did at least my full HP damage (3d8 + 30d4 = 88.5avg damage). We had none of the ways of getting rid of it at our disposal (or the knowledge checks to even know what they were).
Simply put, I think we were very outmatched. After we finally downed the guys, we spent several rounds round-robin passing the wand of CLW to stay alive from the spores. Lets look at some of the suggested CR/XP reward modifiers in the DMG.
Strictly by the rules - EL 9 = 720xp. I think the summon ability being "included" in the CR is a major oversight. As is the unresistable damage from spores.
multiple monsters (DMG p48) - double the number is +2 EL. EL 11 encounter would give 1440xp.
circumstance (p39/50) - the encounter was significantly more difficult, given our party makup and lack of any full casters. it also used a vast amount of party resources (we ended the session by resting for 2 whole days to regain our hp and such, but we also burned a ton of CLW charges). +1 EL = 12 EL = 1920xp
Location - the location favored the Vrocks, but we also used some poor tactics, so the modifiers cancel out.
As a DM, I would have given 2000xp.
If the encounter breaks down into a CR 9/6 like the DM said, we should get ~6,500gp of treasure. We got none. This is just part of a pattern of being horribly under-equipped for our level. My gear of note:
1800 hat of disguise
2000 amulet of nat armor +1
5000 mithral breastplate +1
2000 ring of protection +1
2000 haversack
900 MW Mighty (+5) longbow
a new hammer that the DM will not let me identify and which functions as masterwork that is supposedly worth 10,000gp...but doesn't do anything.
My wealth = 23,700gp. Expected level 8 wealth = 27,000gp. Ok, so not as far behind as I thought, but I think I have more than anyone else...and a 10,000gp hammer than cannot be identified and works as masterwork.
Maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion, but myself and the half-orc player were vocal about our disappointment in our reward, and I don't think the other two were happy either (they are newer players and don't know the DM as well as myself and the half-orc). Am I crazy? How do I approach my DM without him seeing this as an attack on his good DMing style? In the past, when I've tried to clarify rules disputes or say that something is illegal, he usually hand-waves me and does something else. I'm fine with house rules...as long as they are spelled out beforehand.
Well, he seems a bit reluctant to give much treasure, but it doesn't seem too much.
A summoned vrock does not add to XP reward because it's much more easy to get rid of a summoned creature: a dismissal spell and it's done.
Actually he was fairly generous in counting the second Vrock as a CR: an extra reward for a CR 6 is better than no extra reward at all.
For the equipment: yes, you should have something more than this. I think that if the armor was a +2 breastplate and maybe the weapon a +2 weapon, that should do the trick. Besides (not that it matters) the haversack is 2500 gp.
Try to speak to your DM: tell him that you like the way he runs the game, but you feel that the equipment is starting to be ineffective against the challenges you are currently facing.
And players shouldn't be consulting the DMG or the monster manual during a gaming session, period.
How about when my DM goes "hey, look that up while I rule it this way for the moment, so we can do it right next time?"
The amount of XP awards and loot you find shouldn't matter.
Except that it DOES matter. Directly. Part of the fun of the game is (usually anyway) seeing the PC's succeed, improve, and PROFIT in-game from what they do. If the DM tells the players at the start of the campaign, "Your PC's will never advance and only gain minimal profits from adventuring," the attitudes and expectations of the players are going to be VASTLY different than if no such statement is made. Then the players have every reason to expect fairly regularly paced awards for their PC's of "normal" amounts of xp, magic, and cash.
I play DnD to have fun with some friends playing make-believe. I also play DnD for the crunch of the numbers. DnD is chock full of both, and you cannot just ignore either one in favor of the other. The DM is great on the roleplay/story/etc, but I feel the game lacking in the crunchier areas that I am discussing here. No indications were given at the start of the campaign that it would be anything other than a "standard" game (no low-level, no low-magic, no low-gold, and so on). As such, the game has diverged from my expectations.
NO! It is not a situation of DEAL with it or WALK. It is a situation - again - where players need to TALK to the DM DAMMIT! WHY DO PEOPLE NOT GET THIS?...(entire post)...It is NEVER a matter of take only what you're given and ASK NO QUESTIONS, or go away. While I have no trouble offering advice and opinion to posters the FIRST persons they should ALWAYS talk to is the people at their game table - players talking to DM's, DM's talking to their players. COMMUNICATE.
I think someone finally understands me. While I have said this several times, I do admit that my initial posts may have given the wrong impression. Let me say this again, because it is the point of this whole thread.
I like my DM. He tells a great story with memorable NPCs and events. However, I am dissatisfied with certain other aspects of the game (XP/encounters and loot). I do not want to say "Hey, DM, give me 100000000 XP and phat lewtz lolz!!!!!1!!!!" I want to say "Hey, I feel that the game may be lacking in these areas and these are my suggestions that could make the game more fun for me. Take them or leave them." I was trying to get some advice on how to approach my DM without being too adversarial, something at which I have proved I am not good at. Will anyone stop criticizing my views and help me, or not?
EDIT: wow, a second person who understands came out of the woodwork while i was trying this:
I actually agree with the woman in the serious belt. And, the OP's point is that the party should not be penalized for making decisions. He's saying, "Why should we be forced to do something that we don't perceive as fun". But, you should talk to the DM. That is the most common way to deal with a problem, communicate.
See my comments directly above. This is what I am looking for assistance in.
On a side note, the Vrocks a bility cant be covered by its CR, because either is summons another of its kin and the enounter becomes harder, or it fails and the encounter becomes slightly easier (since the vrock wasted an action)
You know... just last week I ran an encounter with a Molydeus, which is a CR19 demon with a vorpal axe and a 1/day Trap the Soul spelllike (and some other abilities). I used the TtS in the first round on the party rogue who made her save by rolling a 20. The entire combat, I didn't roll a single 20 for a vorpal hit (come to think of it, I didn't roll much above 16 anyway...).
So was I right in awarding CR19 XP or should I have told my players "Sorry guys, but that pushover was definitely only CR 15..."?
- The DM did give you more xp than was required according to the rules.
- As you have suggested, the DM is likely to give you a lump sum later on, so the fact that you didn't get a treasure reward for the vrock encounter doesn't necessarily mean the DM is being parsemonious.
Based on that, I think it may be difficult for you to successfully argue that you are not being sufficently rewarded - both in xp and gp - for your efforts.
However...
I agree that it can be less than satisfying to go long periods without gaining any new treasure. Gaining new items and having the chance to try them out is part of the fun. It's part of the development of the characters.
Now that is something that you could possibly communicate to your DM.
And again, I'm one of those people who doesn't think the DM should be put on a pedestal, revered as a god, and never bothered by the "petty" complaints of the players. The DM and the players are all playing the game for fun. the DM is a player just like the others - he just happens to have a different role in the game. It shouldn't be some ego trip or power trip for the DM, and he should be prepared to listen to the other people participating in the game in order to ensure the game is enjoyable for everyone.
Therefore communication is paramount.
Speak to the DM in private. First of all, outline how happy you are with most aspects of his DMing - make sure he understands that you appreciate what he is doing. Then acknowledge that you understand he is not short-changing you with the total amount of treasure the party receives, but that you were wondering if it might be possible to spread it out a bit more regularly. Explain why - tell him that part of the fun for you is having the chance to try out new magic items, so that the characters' abilities don't remain static for long periods of time.
Make it clear that this is something you as a player want, not something your character expects. This is all about you - the real person - getting more enjoyment from the game, not about your character becoming more powerful.
If you think that others in the group support you, by all means involve them in the discussion. But maybe it would be best to speak with the DM one-on-one first so he doesn't feel ambushed or outnumbered. Make your suggestions to him, and ask him not to give you an answer staright away but to think about it and get back to you. I think you will have more chance of success if he doesn't feel pressured into imeediately defending his approach so far. You can suggest that if he's unsure, perhaps the group could discuss it later on to see how everyone feels about it.
In my view, you express yourself very clearly in your posts. So you should be able to be equally effective in talking to the DM. Just remember to make it non-confontational and focus on how you can work together to improve the gaming experience.
You know... just last week I ran an encounter with a Molydeus, which is a CR19 demon with a vorpal axe and a 1/day Trap the Soul spelllike (and some other abilities). I used the TtS in the first round on the party rogue who made her save by rolling a 20. The entire combat, I didn't roll a single 20 for a vorpal hit (come to think of it, I didn't roll much above 16 anyway...).
So was I right in awarding CR19 XP or should I have told my players "Sorry guys, but that pushover was definitely only CR 15..."?
No, because you shouldn't penalize players for having good luck, besides its wasn't even that significant. Not rolling a single twenty in one combat is common enough, and players are bound to succeed a save they normaly can't by rolling a 20.
Then again maybe. Assuming the players are level 19, they should have lost roughly 20% of their resources, did they? If it was alot less then you could treat it as a 18 or 17 encounter level, if it was alot more you could knock it up to 20.
However, I dont see how that was relevent to my post. I was saying that the two different possible results of %-tage chance summoning are adverse and can't be covered by the creatures CR. Dont argue with me on this one, WoTC mentioned it as being a problem in the fiendish codex 2 along with a possibly solution.
Does the lack of experience in any way really detract from the game (as in you lack the magic items and/or XP to defeat the encounters you are facing and not just your opinion of his being stingy)?
If the answer to both of these is Yes then put your worries in a sack and just enjoy the game.
If the answer to the first question is a No then either get a different DM, find a different group, or don't play. He could just be a bad DM and not really stingy at all (or the stinginess is a by product of his being a bad DM).
If the answer to the second question is a No then you, the othher players, and the DM need to sit down and talk to him on a person-to-person level. Tell him exactly what you told us in your first post. If he is a good DM then he will listen and work to rectify the situation. If he ignores what you say then he might just be a bad DM. In which case, see just above this paragraph.
Just remember that losing battles is part of D&D. Even the greatest of heroes dies from time to time. Just ask achilles. You need to look at the overall win-loss ration of the game (as well as other factors, such as enjoyment of the game). In my campaign losing 20-25% of the battles is about par for my players (but I have a very tough, very gritty, very realistic combat style that my players enjoy). If you think the percentage of losses is too high and you are not enjoying the sessions, then talk to the DM. If you are losing a lot of battles but still having fun, then don't worry about. At the end of the day, though, I think you have to ask yourself that first question over and over and over again. And, if you are having fun, then don't sweat the small stuff (like gnomes!).
I like my DM. He tells a great story with memorable NPCs and events. However, I am dissatisfied with certain other aspects of the game (XP/encounters and loot). I do not want to say "Hey, DM, give me 100000000 XP and phat lewtz lolz!!!!!1!!!!" I want to say "Hey, I feel that the game may be lacking in these areas and these are my suggestions that could make the game more fun for me. Take them or leave them." I was trying to get some advice on how to approach my DM without being too adversarial, something at which I have proved I am not good at. Will anyone stop criticizing my views and help me, or not?
Hey, I hear where you're coming from. By all means, talk with the DM. But one of the things I was trying to suggest earlier is that there may be *reasons* why you haven't found loot recently.
Sure, talk to the DM, share your ideas, even share your concern about 4 months spent without finding any decent loot. If your DM is any good, he'll listen carefully and take your comments into consideration in the course of future events. He may even let you in on some OOC secrets that explain *why* you haven't found any loot in the last four months. Maybe you missed the secret door where the loot was stashed. Maybe you stopped the adventure before reaching the end. Maybe you fought critters that don't use any gear you can reclaim. There might be reasons for this.
If there aren't reasons why you haven't found loot recently, then your DM ought to start re-thinking his approach to loot. If there *are* reasons, then perhaps your group of players needs to start being more thorough in their searches, in their use of knowledge checks, lore and so on. They might also want to make sure they are fighting the bad guys for good reasons, loot can also come in the way of rewards from grateful kings and the like.
These are some of things I would discuss with the DM if I were in your shoes. Say, "hey, those battle were cool, we were on the edge of our seats. But how did we manage to miss the loot?"
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Mock26
Do I enjoy gaming with him? Yes.
Does lack of XP/loot "detract" from the game? Not really.
It does, however, slow the mechanical advancement/development of my character. This, to me, is 50% of DnD/roleplaying. (The other half being, hopefully obviously, the development of the character's personality). Not seeing my character change for long periods of time make me less interested in him. In all fairness, however, my character just made a major paradigm shift (what with losing someone under his protection and all).
Wheldrake
Yes, perhaps there are reasons for the lack of loot. I don't expect Vrocks to be carrying tons of useful stuff. Neither do I expect a random treasure chest (what with trying to maintain verisimilitude and all). Throwing in an occasional encounter just to give the characters some new shiny gear would be super, though.
Time for sleep, see you all tomorrow.
Mock26
Do I enjoy gaming with him? Yes.
Does lack of XP/loot "detract" from the game? Not really.
It does, however, slow the mechanical advancement/development of my character. This, to me, is 50% of DnD/roleplaying. (The other half being, hopefully obviously, the development of the character's personality). Not seeing my character change for long periods of time make me less interested in him. In all fairness, however, my character just made a major paradigm shift (what with losing someone under his protection and all).
Tell you DM exactly what you told me.
Lemme pull up an 8th level sword-and-board fighter build I made and compare to the Vrock.
Vrock
115 HP
AC 22
15/15/13/13/13 AB
13 dmg per hit
Fighter
87.5 HP (76% of Vrock)
18/18/13 AB (85%/85%/60% chance of hitting, 2.3 hits per full attack)
24 AC (60%/60%/35%/35%/35% chance of getting hit, 2.25 hits per full attack)
16.5 damage per hit (127% of Vrock 6.5 or 50% of Vrock after DR)
Fighter using combat expertise
87.5 HP (76% of Vrock)
13/13/8 AB (60%/60%/35% chance of hitting, 1.55 hits per full attack)
29 AC (35%/35%/10%/10%/10% chance of getting hit, 1.0 hits per full attack)
16.5 damage per hit (127% of Vrock 6.5 or 50% of Vrock after DR)
The only challenge is beating the Vrock's DR/good and flight. After that the 1st fighter is a perfectly even match for the Vrock both in full attacks and single hits. If the Vrock is dumb enough to stay engaged with the fighter, then combat expertise makes the fighter 50% better than the Vrock. I understand the one you fought liked to close for full attacks (like most Vrocks), so that solves the flight issue. Assuming the cleric helps with the DR, he's all set. Power attack would help a little against the DR, but he'd still be in trouble. Against 2 Vrocks he'd also get creamed;, but being able to handle 1 by himself is good enough in a party.
I'm not saying the fighter is the optimal choice here (gasp! The flames, the flames, noooo). I'm saying you have a really weak group. Optimally you'd have a good tank like the fighter above, a good blaster mage, a cleric or some healer and then either a ranged combatant or another blaster or w/e. Instead you have 3 poorly made "fighters", a skillmonkey rogue and a couple weak NPCs.
Also, I want to know why the loot was made out to be that big a deal. Being about 10% behind is within an acceptable margin of error. With or without it, it would make little difference. If the Vrock would kick your ass, it still will. The problem is that your party isn't worth its ECL. :P
Point 2 - Players always want more, even in a "Monty Haul" campaign with a "Santa Claus" DM.
Point 3 - The CR system is a GUIDELINE. It is not intended to be exact.
Point 4 - The monetary system is also a GUIDELINE.
Point 5 - Magic weapons do not have to reveal their powers just b/c you say so! Some of them require some kind of a action to activate. Hitting a Clay Golem with a natural 20 for instance. Once the required action is performed, who knows what will happen. I have handed out a couple of these magic items to players and they really loved the history and special properties. They remembered them and treasured them instead of complaining. You have no idea what you have and the DM wants to keep it that way for a reason. Just roll with it.
Point 6 - When I play, I grouse about the amount of treasure I have b/c I play a wizard and I have to sell magic items to stay at an inn or to copy spells into my book! I know what you are saying but I don't think you will get much sympathy here.
Point 7 - As a DM, you should be aware of all the previous points and cut your DM some slack.
Vrock
115 hp (plus DR 10/good)
22 AC
Full Attack +15/+15/+13/+13/+13
Damage 13/13/7.5/6.5/6.5
mirror image, telekenesis, greater teleport at will
Spores 1d8 + 10d4 (29.5) damage
Stunning Screech DC 22
Me
79 hp
- (6 + 3d6 + 4d12 + 24con...i rolled well)
- (an average fighter will have 72.5 = 10 + 7d10 + 24con)
26 AC
- (10 + 6armor + 3dex + 2natural + 1deflection + 4 Protection Devotion)
- (your guy has 10 + 10armor + 0dex + 4shield...a +2 armor and +2 shield is more gear than I have access to)
Full Attack +13/+8/+5 (hammer/hammer/bite)
- (+6 BAB, +5 str, +1focus, +1masterwork)
-(average 8th level fighter will have +15 = +8bab +4str +1focus +2weapon...how are you getting another +3?...how is he getting an extra attack at full BAB?)
Damage 13.5/13.5/8.5
- (1d12 + 7str...remember, this weapon is effectively masterwork)
- (your average fighter should be doing 17 = 2d6 + 6str + 2weapon + 2spec...admittedly more than I, but not once you take into account the equipment used...which is one of my complaints)
Spells of note - mirror image
Assuming full attack on both sides, here are the average damages (yours also assumes he can bypass DR...somehow):
Vrock = 21.2
- 50%/50%/40%/40%/40% hit
- .5(13) + .5(13) + .4(7.5) + .4(6.5) + .4(6.5)
- 6.5 + 6.5 + 3 + 2.6 + 2.6
Me = 3.325
- 60%/35%/20%
- .6(13.5-10dr) + .35(13.5-10dr) + .2(8.5 - 10dr)
- 2.1 + 1.225 + 0
Tell me again how 3.325 damage a round in any way compares to the Vrock. It will only take me 35 rounds to down one...oh, wait, there are two!!
You are also forgetting the spores. Here's how much they did, all told.
Me - 3 spores - 3d8 + 30d4 - 88.5 damage
Half-Orc - 3 spores - 3d8 + 30d4 - 88.5 damage
Paladin - 4 spores - 4d8 + 40d4 damage - 118 damage
Cleric - 1 spore - 1d8 + 10d4 - 29.5 damage
It seems that you fighter has high stats (at least 18 Con for that hp total, 13 Int for expertise, and probably 18/20 str) and better gear than I. How is that a valid comparison?
As you can see, the spores did a total of ~324.5 damage. Yes there are ways to get rid of them. Our cleric (controlled and statted by the DM) neither had the knowledge nor the spells prepared to do so, however.
As for the combat as a whole -
- I, by far, did the most damage to the things. Between fighting defensively and my mirror image and high AC, i was saved from getting hit much, but the spores really got me. As a side note, there was indecision whether or not Spores could affect the images, thus dispelling them - if it did, I would have been even more vulnerable than I was.
- Half-Orc was stunned twice and spent most of the combat unable to reach the Vrocks.
- Cleric cohort summoned a few things that died in one hit, then healed frantically.
- Dwarf pegged with tons of arrows to try to drop the mirror images.
- Rogue hit once or twice for 0 damage due to DR, then took a full attack and went down.
- Paladin NPC stunned twice, then went down quickly after that. I don't think he even hit once.
Some of is was crappy luck. Some of it was poor tactics. By and large, however, I think the combat was so difficult due to our inability to handle either the DR or the Spores. If I didn't have bard levels and healing hymn to mitigate that long lasting spore damage after we finally downed the Vrocks, I'm sure at least one of us (if not two or three) would be dead.
I really didn't want to bring the Vrocks up again, but I feel you example is unrepresentative both of our party situation and the abilities of an 8th level fighter. It also handwaves the DR and Spores that were the heart of its difficulty.
hp - In order to have those HP his Con must be 18. If he gets that with an item, that's (at least) 4,000gp my character doesn't have access to. This is independent of my build.
AC - It appears he is wearing a +2 full plate, +2 heavy shield, and 10 Dex. That is another 9,500gp of assumed wealth.
Atk - How is an 8th level fighter getting that second attack at full BAB? The only thing I can think of is haste. To get that, he either needs a caster, which my character does not have access to, or Boots of Speed...another 12,000gp. He also has a +18 bonus (+8bab, +4str, +1haste, +5something else). If we use the +1 holy longsword below, he is still off by +4 attack bonus. Where is this coming from?
Damage - 16.5 per hit for a sword-and-board. 1d8 longsword + 4 strength is only 8.5 damage (with a generous 18 Str). To get that to 16.5 is another 8 damage (perhaps a +1 flaming frost longsword? another 18,000gp, please). Hope that 18 strength is rolled, or that's another 4,000gp+ for an item.
Bypassing DR/good - Either he has someone casting align weapon, something my character doesn't have access to, a Holy Weapon (which would also fit my above damage calculations), or he is an outsider.
Ignoring Spore Damage - Frankly, I don't know how he can do this. Perhaps some kind of poison/disease immunity from an item (another 27,000gp), or the assumption of a caster with the knowledge of the "cures," and enough prepared to use them on every instance of Spores. Granted, he didn't say he was ignoring Spore damage, but it never entered his calculations and was effectively ignored.
So, lets see what this fighter looks like.
Level 8 Human Fighter
Str 16 (15+1lvl), Dex 11, Con 18, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 8 (32 point buy)
4,650gp +2 full plate
4,160gp +2 heavy shield
18,300gp +1 holy longsword
4,000gp +2 str item
27,000gp Periapt of Proof Against Poison
12,000gp Boots of Speed
This give him the stated hp, AC, damage, along with the ability to bypass DR and Spores damage. However, even with this, his attack is only +14 (+8bab +4str +1enhancement +1haste) vs the stated +18. Where is that extra attack coming from?
70,110gp...on an 8th level fighter. That's more than the expected of 11th level. More than 5 times my character's effective wealth.
That goes down to 31,110 (between 8th and 9th level) if we assume casters buffing him...which my character does not have access to. And still double my wealth.
Let me propose the "average" level 8 fighter
Human Fighter 8
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 8
8,300gp +1 flaming greatsword
4,650gp +2 fullplate
4,000gp +2 strength item
4,000gp +2 natural armor
4,000gp +2 deflection
2,500gp haversack
27,450gp is just about right. His stats -
hp 72.5
- (less than mine)
AC 25
- (less than mine)
Atk +15/+10 (+8bab, +5str, +1focus, +1enhance)
- (more than mine)
Damage 20.5 (2d6 + 7str + 1enhance +1d6fire +2specialization)
- (more than mine)
Seems better than me, but still fairly comparable, unlike the numbers given by Nathreet.
Check the rest of your math.
A couple of points I'd like to highlight, and offer my opinions on;
The Vrock(s). Fighting two of them is the CR 9 encounter. You make the assumption that one of them is a CR 9, and become confused when a second shows up and it remains a CR 9 instead of a CR 11. If the first Vrock doesn't summon a second one, then the encounter become easier than a CR 9.
20th level wizards, spells, gear and encounter levels. Here's a point that I believe a lot of people get confused about; A 20th level wizard is a CR 20, but that doesn't automatically make it a 20th level encounter. CR does not equal EL. The EL can, and should be, adjusted on the fly by the DM according to how easy or difficult any given encounter is for the party. XP is based on EL, not CR.
Druids and random rabid wolves. You brought up how a 2nd level druid with a wolf companion is CR 2, but a druid with a random wolf is a CR 3. The Challenge rating of the druid assumes that the druid does have an animal companion, because it's one of their class features. In actuality, the 3rd level encounter would be a 2nd level druid, his wolf animal companion and a random wolf.
115 hp
AC 22
Full atk +15/+15/+13/+9/+9
avg dmg/hit 13/13/7/6/6
Fighter 8th (NPC from DMG)
64 hp
AC 23 (28 w/ combat expertise)
Full atk +13/+8 (+1 bastard sword, focus, specialyzation) (+8/+3 w/combat expertise)
avg dmg/hit 11/11
To hit: - the Vrock needs: 8/8/10/12/12 (13/13/15/17/17 combat expertise), meaning a chance of hitting of 60%/60%/50%/40%/40% (35%/35%/25%/15%/15%)
- the fighter needs: 9/14 (14/19 combat expertise), meaning a chance of hitting of 55%/30% (30%/10%)
This means that an 8th lvl fighter facing a Vrock deals more or less 9.35 dmg/round against the vrock (13 rounds to kill it), while the vrock deals 23.9 dmg per round to the fighter (3 rounds to kill him). not counting crit. hits.
But this equation alone does not mean very much: any 8th lvl character does not stand a chance of defeating a CR 9 monster single handedly. CR are for group of 4 characters.
In fact, if we multiply the fighter by 4 and divide the Vrock by the same (since we are figuring a party of four and the Vrock will have to divide his damage -this represent the total of the group's resources the Vrock will be capable of disabling).
Anyway: the fighters' damage/r would become 37.4 (9.35x4), while the Vrock's would become 5.975 (23.9/4).
Plus: Vrock's total hp does not increase, while total fighter's hp becomes 256.
This way the Vrock will need 43 rounds to kill them all, while they need just 4 to disable him, during which he shal deal just23.9 damage, representing less than 10% the group's resources. Adding spore damage (1d8+10d4) we can add an average 24 damage to each fighter, which is 96 damage (24x4). Total damage of 119.9 (slightly more than 50% of the group resources). This assuming they kill it before it's init. count, otherwise he can deal another spore damage (+96)
As you can see, the Vrock acts exactly like a CR+1 monster should act, dealing the right amount of damage (it should be more than 50%, but I didn't count miss chance for mirror image, which basically prolongs the Vrock's resistance, allowing him to deal more damage).
This is the math. If a normal Vrock endangers a party more than this, it is probably a problem of party's strength (your party, for instance, seems to lack of a proper tank and a damage dealer, not to speak of a serious arcane caster).
Such roles may be filled, at 8th lvl, by:
1) dwarf/half orc/human barbarian/fighter - tank; the fighter needs heavy armor and shield, the barbarian a high Con score.
2) elf/human rogue, half orc barbarian - damage dealer; he needs good stealth skills (best if buffed by a caster) and needs waining the time of unleashing a sneak attack. The barbarian needs high Str score and a big weapon.
3) any race wizard - arcane caster; the cleric will be capable of buffing first line fighters, but the arcane caster is essential to buff the stealthy character (invisibility, cat's grace for one); plus he can place a strong spell when needed, often dealing a killing blow.
Your party has the following issues: bard/barbarian/disciple of the dragon is not a tank, but more of a secondl line fighter. He can have access to useful arcane spells and can buff other players. The paladin and the fighter/warblade are first line fighters, but need buffing spells to survive. The cleric and the bard should provide them.
The rogue must find his way to be useful in a fight. I don't know about the rogue version you speak of, but I'm sure he can still place a good sneak attack at least once every encounter.
It seems to me more a matter of coordination than a power level issue.
Against a Vrock, the cleric should have started with dispel magic or banish to get rid of the summoned Vrock (and maybe even of the summing one). The spore damage is avoided via neutral poison (with lasting effects).
The encounter went bad because you played at the Vrock's conditions: this is called passive style of play. You need to be more active: try to bring every encounter on conditions that are optymal for you rather than leaving it in the hands of the monster. Roll die, deal damage isn't that effective: sooner or later that will lead to a party slaughter-age.
Against a Vrock, the cleric should have started with dispel magic or banish to get rid of the summoned Vrock (and maybe even of the summing one). The spore damage is avoided via neutral poison (with lasting effects).
The Cleric would have had to have had those spell prepared to cast them.
The encounter went bad because you played at the Vrock's conditions: this is called passive style of play. You need to be more active: try to bring every encounter on conditions that are optymal for you rather than leaving it in the hands of the monster. Roll die, deal damage isn't that effective: sooner or later that will lead to a party slaughter-age.
It's really easy to fault people for what spells they did or didn't prepare in hindsight
My question is why didn't the Paladin have a good aligning weapon spell? Bless Weapon is actually a 1st level Paladin spell.
Side note: Bard/Barbarian/Dragon Disciple is a bad combination unless you are favoring Barbarian. Start Barbarian, then take a level or two of Bard to pump ranks into Knowledge(arcana) mid level.
XP is based on EL, not CR.
Actually, XP is based on the CR of the enemy.
The Cleric would have had to have had those spell prepared to cast them.
Did I say the contrary? Where. Quote it please.
It's really easy to fault people for what spells they did or didn't prepare in hindsight
I wasn't faulting anyone. I was analyzing.
My question is why didn't the Paladin have a good aligning weapon spell? Bless Weapon is actually a 1st level Paladin spell.
Copy/paste from above:
It's really easy to fault people for what spells they did or didn't prepare in hindsight
Yeah, right.
I only briefly skimmed the thread after the 3rd or 4th post, so I'm sorry if I'm just repeating anything that's already been said.
A couple of points I'd like to highlight, and offer my opinions on;
The Vrock(s). Fighting two of them is the CR 9 encounter. You make the assumption that one of them is a CR 9, and become confused when a second shows up and it remains a CR 9 instead of a CR 11. If the first Vrock doesn't summon a second one, then the encounter become easier than a CR 9.
20th level wizards, spells, gear and encounter levels. Here's a point that I believe a lot of people get confused about; A 20th level wizard is a CR 20, but that doesn't automatically make it a 20th level encounter. CR does not equal EL. The EL can, and should be, adjusted on the fly by the DM according to how easy or difficult any given encounter is for the party. XP is based on EL, not CR.
Druids and random rabid wolves. You brought up how a 2nd level druid with a wolf companion is CR 2, but a druid with a random wolf is a CR 3. The Challenge rating of the druid assumes that the druid does have an animal companion, because it's one of their class features. In actuality, the 3rd level encounter would be a 2nd level druid, his wolf animal companion and a random wolf.
So should a caster who summons monsters get less XP since the party now have more combatants? I know there are not that many monsters worth summoning, but arrow demons are on the summon list and are good enough to have an affect on combat.
Copy/paste from above:
Yeah, right.
The Paladin was a NPC. Go again.
I know it isn't solo fighter v Vrock, but I was just saying that his example overstated the fighter's abilities. Your example fighter also has the problems of ignoring the DR and Spores, however
Your examples also expect a "balanced" party, which CR is based on. An unbalanced party can make encounters more difficult...and they should get more XP to make up for it.
It's really easy to fault people for what spells they did or didn't prepare in hindsight
My question is why didn't the Paladin have a good aligning weapon spell? Bless Weapon is actually a 1st level Paladin spell.
Side note: Bard/Barbarian/Dragon Disciple is a bad combination unless you are favoring Barbarian. Start Barbarian, then take a level or two of Bard to pump ranks into Knowledge(arcana) mid level.
As to my character - I said that the half-orc was more frontline-suited than I was. I decided bard 4/barbarian 1 instead of barbarian 4/bard 1 because I felt like trading ~15 HP, uncanny dodge, +1 fort, and a second rage for 3 more inspires, +1 ref/will, 14 skill points, and 2nd level spells (mirror image gives at least 66% miss chance...best AC you can get) was worth it. My call. Also, a 4th level bard is hardly a buffing machine.
As for the Cleric, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cleric is DM-controlled (half-orc's cohort via leadership)...and proved utterly useless.
Same with the Paladin (NPC for this quest, so also DM-controlled). Got stunned, maybe swung once or twice, then went down.
Actually, XP is based on the CR of the enemy.
For single monsters, this is true, because a CR 10 dragon is supposed to be a EL 10. When an encounter is tougher than it should be, or easier than it should be, the XP award is based on an adjusted EL, not an adjusted CR.
When there's more than one creature/NPC defeated, the DM may need to calculate the XP for each creature/NPC individually, but the total handed out is based on the adjusted EL.
So should a caster who summons monsters get less XP since the party now have more combatants? I know there are not that many monsters worth summoning, but arrow demons are on the summon list and are good enough to have an affect on combat.
A lot of spells are "good" enough to have an affect on combat. I don't quite understand what part of my post your questioning, since the EL/CR system assumes that "summoned" monsters are a part of the challenge. Sure, a PC could summon a creature to help combat, but that caster could also just spam ranged damage spells at low levels and save or die spells at higher levels. PCs summoning monsters wouldn't reduce the amount of XP awarded any more than Fireball would.
Don't listen to the "deal with it or walk" crowd. Just be respectful and explain why you enjoy gaming. Hopefully the two of you can communicate and both come out enjoying the game more.
People who make the DM into some god that deserves worship from the players bother me. Within the context of the game world, the DM's word goes. The gaming group itself is a social construction. DM's that run unenjoyable games quickly find become ex-DM's.
No, because you shouldn't penalize players for having good luck, besides its wasn't even that significant. Not rolling a single twenty in one combat is common enough, and players are bound to succeed a save they normaly can't by rolling a 20.
Then again maybe. Assuming the players are level 19, they should have lost roughly 20% of their resources, did they? If it was alot less then you could treat it as a 18 or 17 encounter level, if it was alot more you could knock it up to 20.
However, I dont see how that was relevent to my post. I was saying that the two different possible results of %-tage chance summoning are adverse and can't be covered by the creatures CR. Dont argue with me on this one, WoTC mentioned it as being a problem in the fiendish codex 2 along with a possibly solution.
Yeah, right... and WotC has never made any errors of judgement...
Saying that demonic summoning doesn't work with the CR system while having no problems with the effects of Save-or-Die abilties sounds rather strange to me - the effects are pretty much the same: A radical alteration of the happenings in combat (one PC less - one monster more) due to a single roll of the dice.
So why should one be ok when the other is not?
The real problem is that the CR system doesn't really say what it is. Are XP to be awarded for a challenging fight that was won by tactics? By luck of the dice? By being prepared? Just the base for winning the fight, without consideration to how it was won? With a reduction if the DM didn't see that certain character abilities would disable the monster in two rounds?
For single monsters, this is true, because a CR 10 dragon is supposed to be a EL 10. When an encounter is tougher than it should be, or easier than it should be, the XP award is based on an adjusted EL, not an adjusted CR.
When there's more than one creature/NPC defeated, the DM may need to calculate the XP for each creature/NPC individually, but the total handed out is based on the adjusted EL.
A lot of spells are "good" enough to have an affect on combat. I don't quite understand what part of my post your questioning, since the EL/CR system assumes that "summoned" monsters are a part of the challenge. Sure, a PC could summon a creature to help combat, but that caster could also just spam ranged damage spells at low levels and save or die spells at higher levels. PCs summoning monsters wouldn't reduce the amount of XP awarded any more than Fireball would.
I may be wrong, but I took your previous post as saying that if the summon ability succeed the party should get more XP because the Vrock got help, and I asked should the party get less XP if they get help from a summon spell.
What is good for one is good for the other.
If that is not what you were saying I apologize, and will reply in about a day or so.
I may be wrong, but I took your previous post as saying that if the summon ability succeed the party should get more XP because the Vrock got help, and I asked should the party get less XP if they get help from a summon spell.
What is good for one is good for the other.
If that is not what you were saying I apologize, and will reply in about a day or so.
Ahhhh.... no, what I was saying was that the Vrock in the MM is listed as a CR 9 creature. If Vrock #1 summons Vrock #2 that equals a CR 9. If Vrock #1 summons nothing, then it's an easier encounter, and shouldn't be given the XP award of a CR 9. Taking away from a creatures abilities makes it less of a challenge, and the CR assumes summoning a second Vrock. It may not always succeed, but it's assumed that it will.
That was kinda the roundabout point of what I was saying about the difference between CR an EL. A million different things can drastically change how any encounter goes, causing it to range from a one-hit kill to a TPK. The CR of any given creature remains the same, but the EL should be adjusted according to how easy/difficult an encounter is. If a monster summoning a second monster bones the party, I'd give bonus XP for that single encounter. If the PCs summoning a creature or having a cohort trivializes an encounter, I'd reduce the XP for that single encounter.
Ahhhh.... no, what I was saying was that the Vrock in the MM is listed as a CR 9 creature. If Vrock #1 summons Vrock #2 that equals a CR 9. If Vrock #1 summons nothing, then it's an easier encounter, and shouldn't be given the XP award of a CR 9. Taking away from a creatures abilities makes it less of a challenge, and the CR assumes summoning a second Vrock. It may not always succeed, but it's assumed that it will.
That was kinda the roundabout point of what I was saying about the difference between CR an EL. A million different things can drastically change how any encounter goes, causing it to range from a one-hit kill to a TPK. The CR of any given creature remains the same, but the EL should be adjusted according to how easy/difficult an encounter is. If a monster summoning a second monster bones the party, I'd give bonus XP for that single encounter. If the PCs summoning a creature or having a cohort trivializes an encounter, I'd reduce the XP for that single encounter.
I'm not sure 35% chance of success is really saying that the Vrock is a CR 9 because it is supposed to succeed in summoning allies, more like ... he has a slight chance of succeeding. Almost 2 out of 3 Vrocks will fail to summon anything. If you fight 3 "real" Vrocks, then I guess it will work out mathematically overall, which is a good way to rationalize it :P.
I agree summoned enemies which are close to or exactly the same difficulty of the summoning creature are pretty wonky and not a good measure of a monster's CR. In that kind of situation it probably couldn't hurt to award a bit more XP regardless.
The thing is, there are so many imperfections in the CR/EL system that if you start doing it for one thing it is almost like you have to "interpret" every encounter that is a bit unusual. I don't think it is worth the extra time to puzzle over every slight permutation.
So, maybe a Vrock that succeeds in summoning another Vrock is harder than a Vrock that fails to summon his ally and wastes an action. Should we start figuring out what the difference is between
Vrock A: who successfully summons his friend in the first round of combat,
Vrock B: who tries and fails to summon his friend in the first round of combat,
Vrock C: who uses an item (Scroll or something) to summon a friend to aid him in the first round of combat,
Vrock D: who uses his summoning ability when he hears the party coming before combat actually starts, thus not using any of his actions,
Vrock E: who just calls for his friend upstairs to come down and help him fight adventurers,
Vrock F: who spends the entire combat attempting to get allies to help him (summoning, items, yelling for help, running around etc.)
continued...
Vrock G: who the party sneaks up on and kills in the surprise round,
Vrock H: who sneaks up on the party and almost kills all of them,
Vrock I: who can't roll higher than a '3' on anything the entire fight,
Vrock J: who can't roll anything lower than an '18' the entire fight,
Vrock K: who fights a party who only rolls high or only rolls low,
Vrock L: who decides, "To heck with it," and doesn't even try at all to summon allies,
Vrock M: who only tries to escape from the party and warn his leader,
Vrock N: who summons a second Vrock, but the party found a Scrolls of Dismissal in the previous room and Dismisses the summoned Vrock as soon as it appears,
Vrock O: who was actually good aligned, and the party was supposed to find and talk with to complete their quest,
Vrock P: who summons a second Vrock but the party already has Protection from Evil on all of them,
Vrock Q: who the party learns about in advance and bypasses by Teleporting past,
Vrock R: who the party convinces to quit his evil ways and join them in the fight for good,
Vrock S: who the party Dominates and proceed to use to kill other dungeon denizens,
Vrock T: who they killed accidentally when they were flipping some switches randomly in another part of the dungeon,
Vrock U: who, already depressed to begin with, kills himself as soon as he sees another party of adventurers coming,
Vrock V: who continually Teleports to use hit-and-run tactics on the party and constantly healing himself, thereby weakening the party and dogging them for 2 levels of their careers
Vrock W: who fights a party of Clerics and Paladins sent there to destroy him
Vrock X: who fights a party of Wizards sent there to destroy him
Vrock Y: who fights a party of Fighters sent there to destroy him
Vrock Z: who was actually only a figment of the PCs' imaginations due to a strong illusion spell
Vrock A1: who chooses not to try summoning a Vrock, but summons Dretches -- but only 2 show up,
Vrock A2: who chooses to summon Dretches -- and all 20 show up,
Vrock A3: who, for whatever reason kills the only PC able to do real damage to him in the first round,
Vrock A4: who, for whatever reason only attacks a certain party member who actually poses no threat, while the rest of the party destroys him,
Vrock G: who the party sneaks up on and kills in the surprise round,
Vrock H: who sneaks up on the party and almost kills all of them,
Vrock I: who can't roll higher than a '3' on anything the entire fight,
Vrock J: who can't roll anything lower than an '18' the entire fight,
Vrock K: who fights a party who only rolls high or only rolls low,
Vrock L: who decides, "To heck with it," and doesn't even try at all to summon allies,
Vrock M: who only tries to escape from the party and warn his leader,
Vrock N: who summons a second Vrock, but the party found a Scrolls of Dismissal in the previous room and Dismisses the summoned Vrock as soon as it appears,
Vrock O: who was actually good aligned, and the party was supposed to find and talk with to complete their quest,
Vrock P: who summons a second Vrock but the party already has Protection from Evil on all of them,
Vrock Q: who the party learns about in advance and bypasses by Teleporting past,
Vrock R: who the party convinces to quit his evil ways and join them in the fight for good,
Vrock S: who the party Dominates and proceed to use to kill other dungeon denizens,
Vrock T: who they killed accidentally when they were flipping some switches randomly in another part of the dungeon,
Vrock U: who, already depressed to begin with, kills himself as soon as he sees another party of adventurers coming,
Vrock V: who continually Teleports to use hit-and-run tactics on the party and constantly healing himself, thereby weakening the party and dogging them for 2 levels of their careers
Vrock W: who fights a party of Clerics and Paladins sent there to destroy him
Vrock X: who fights a party of Wizards sent there to destroy him
Vrock Y: who fights a party of Fighters sent there to destroy him
Vrock Z: who was actually only a figment of the PCs' imaginations due to a strong illusion spell
Vrock A1: who chooses not to try summoning a Vrock, but summons Dretches -- but only 2 show up,
Vrock A2: who chooses to summon Dretches -- and all 20 show up,
Vrock A3: who, for whatever reason kills the only PC able to do real damage to him in the first round,
Vrock A4: who, for whatever reason only attacks a certain party member who actually poses no threat, while the rest of the party destroys him,
White Wizard
I know it isn't solo fighter v Vrock, but I was just saying that his example overstated the fighter's abilities. Your example fighter also has the problems of ignoring the DR and Spores, however
In truth I was saying that to the poster before you: the first one showing Vrock vs Fighter.
I ignored spores and DR for a reason: in a Vrock vs single foe, spores are really meaningless, the Vrock wins either using them or not, so it wasn't useful for the example one vs one (you'll notice that I included spore damage in 1 vs 4). Vrock's DR is so easily overcome that even a 1st level fighter has theorical access to bypassing it, so I didn't even bother.
Your examples also expect a "balanced" party, which CR is based on. An unbalanced party can make encounters more difficult...and they should get more XP to make up for it.
Nope. It makes them more difficult to win, but it does not increase the CR. No XP reward is supposed to be given for unbalanced parties. Besides your DM gave you extra XP reward, counting the summoned Vrock as an extra CR.
As a DM (and as a Player with perhaps a little too much intimate knowledge of the MM) I have seen fights that theoretically should have been really easy turn out to be really hard, and vice versa. I've seen the CR 9 creature fall within 1 round, and the group of CR 2 creatures fight on for 10+ rounds with half the party out of commission or out of resources.
All you can hope for is that a good DM (and Players) will recognize when there are huge differences from what is expected and correct the problems in the future.
You should talk about the treasure issue though.
True that. I remember, at level 6 ECL party I was in: we fought as couple goblins (10) and than after fighting them immediately fought 6 gnolls (one was a level 5 gnoll mage, he used fireball).
It took 20+ rounds.
A few goblins died from fireball. The Warmage never used fireball before so... sadly, he missed many moments he could have.
It was a disaster: I almost died.
Yeah, right... and WotC has never made any errors of judgement...
Saying that demonic summoning doesn't work with the CR system while having no problems with the effects of Save-or-Die abilties sounds rather strange to me - the effects are pretty much the same: A radical alteration of the happenings in combat (one PC less - one monster more) due to a single roll of the dice.
So why should one be ok when the other is not?
The real problem is that the CR system doesn't really say what it is. Are XP to be awarded for a challenging fight that was won by tactics? By luck of the dice? By being prepared? Just the base for winning the fight, without consideration to how it was won? With a reduction if the DM didn't see that certain character abilities would disable the monster in two rounds?
I never said save or die spells wheren't unbalancing, mainly because this thread isn't talking about the outcome of a save or die spell.
As for WoTC making errors, well Ill gladly hear any alternative system you've obviosly made yourself. By playing this game you've show that you aren't bothered that much by them.
Finally, the key I use for determining a challange is that the party should exsapend roughly 20% of their resources in a fight against a monsters whose CR = the parties average level. If its greatly more or less than I change the XP award, (privided its down to anything aside poor tactics from the PCs)
I think the DM should given a suggestion of helpful classes for a particular campaign. If the cleric highly suggest a cleric for reasons other than undead, but won't elaborate as an example, then the party should play a cleric or get one through leadership. If the party ignores the advice of the DM, then they should just be prepared to face the consequences. If the DM does not give them any advice, even if asked I feel as though the DM is setting them up for failure. He does not have to say you will fight a undead for a large part of this adventure, and there will no traps, so don't bother playing a rogue, but he can say the party won't really need a rogue, as another example.
I will create an NPC, or dig up one of my old ones if nobody wants to play a certain character type, but since that NPC is eating up XP, and gold, just as if it were a party member(but not as powerful as the PC's), most of my players will just play the class. He/She kind of gets viewed as that slacker(not that my NPC's are weak) at work who does not do as much as everyone else, but gets paid the same.
I'm not sure 35% chance of success is really saying that the Vrock is a CR 9 because it is supposed to succeed in summoning allies, more like ... he has a slight chance of succeeding. Almost 2 out of 3 Vrocks will fail to summon anything. If you fight 3 "real" Vrocks, then I guess it will work out mathematically overall, which is a good way to rationalize it :P.
I never said "supposed" to succeed, I said "assumed" to succeed. It's "assumed" that if the Vrock succeeds it's a CR 9 encounter. If that fails, then I reason that it's not a CR 9 encounter.
I agree summoned enemies which are close to or exactly the same difficulty of the summoning creature are pretty wonky and not a good measure of a monster's CR. In that kind of situation it probably couldn't hurt to award a bit more XP regardless.
Why aren't they a good measure? Going by the DMG, 2 creatures of the same CR equals an EL of 2 higher than the CR. So 2 CR 7 creatures equals a EL 9.
The Vrock is listed as a CR 9. The biggest question is if that's a solo Vrock or a pair of Vrocks. I personally feel that CR 9 is for a pair. Ultimately it's up to the DM how much XP gets handed out, and it appears to me that it could be handled in one of three ways;
1 Vrock = CR 9 if it fails to summon, thus the summoned Vrock = EL 11.
1 Vrock = CR 9 regardless of the summoning succeeding or not. Summoned Vrock does not add anything. 1 or 2 Vrocks = EL 9
1 Vrock = CR 9 only if the summoning is successful, thus 1 Vrock = EL 7, 2 Vrocks = EL 9.
I follow the third "rule".
The thing is, there are so many imperfections in the CR/EL system that if you start doing it for one thing it is almost like you have to "interpret" every encounter that is a bit unusual. I don't think it is worth the extra time to puzzle over every slight permutation.
So, maybe a Vrock that succeeds in summoning another Vrock is harder than a Vrock that fails to summon his ally and wastes an action. Should we start figuring out what the difference is between
Vrock A: who successfully summons his friend in the first round of combat,
Vrock B: who tries and fails to summon his friend in the first round of combat,
Vrock C: who uses an item (Scroll or something) to summon a friend to aid him in the first round of combat,
Vrock D: who uses his summoning ability when he hears the party coming before combat actually starts, thus not using any of his actions,
Vrock E: who just calls for his friend upstairs to come down and help him fight adventurers,
Vrock F: who spends the entire combat attempting to get allies to help him (summoning, items, yelling for help, running around etc.)continued...
Vrock G: who the party sneaks up on and kills in the surprise round,
Vrock H: who sneaks up on the party and almost kills all of them,
Vrock I: who can't roll higher than a '3' on anything the entire fight,
Vrock J: who can't roll anything lower than an '18' the entire fight,
Vrock K: who fights a party who only rolls high or only rolls low,
Vrock L: who decides, "To heck with it," and doesn't even try at all to summon allies,
Vrock M: who only tries to escape from the party and warn his leader,
Vrock N: who summons a second Vrock, but the party found a Scrolls of Dismissal in the previous room and Dismisses the summoned Vrock as soon as it appears,
Vrock O: who was actually good aligned, and the party was supposed to find and talk with to complete their quest,
Vrock P: who summons a second Vrock but the party already has Protection from Evil on all of them,
Vrock Q: who the party learns about in advance and bypasses by Teleporting past,
Vrock R: who the party convinces to quit his evil ways and join them in the fight for good,
Vrock S: who the party Dominates and proceed to use to kill other dungeon denizens,
Vrock T: who they killed accidentally when they were flipping some switches randomly in another part of the dungeon,
Vrock U: who, already depressed to begin with, kills himself as soon as he sees another party of adventurers coming,
Vrock V: who continually Teleports to use hit-and-run tactics on the party and constantly healing himself, thereby weakening the party and dogging them for 2 levels of their careers
Vrock W: who fights a party of Clerics and Paladins sent there to destroy him
Vrock X: who fights a party of Wizards sent there to destroy him
Vrock Y: who fights a party of Fighters sent there to destroy him
Vrock Z: who was actually only a figment of the PCs' imaginations due to a strong illusion spell
Vrock A1: who chooses not to try summoning a Vrock, but summons Dretches -- but only 2 show up,
Vrock A2: who chooses to summon Dretches -- and all 20 show up,
Vrock A3: who, for whatever reason kills the only PC able to do real damage to him in the first round,
Vrock A4: who, for whatever reason only attacks a certain party member who actually poses no threat, while the rest of the party destroys him,
1) The enemy had a terrain advantage (+1-2)
2) The players had a terrain advantage (-1-2)
3) The enemy had sufficent prep time (+1)
4) The players had sufficent prep time (-1)
5) The creature after doing a straight takes 10 vs an iconic party of 4 play test (and played well BTW) yeilds to be either extremely over or under CR. BTW, a vrock is CR 8-9 IF it summons for this BTW.
If the creature is harder because you rolled poorly...too bad. If it's easier because you rolled well...then good for you. If it's harder because of your party make up...too bad. If it's easier because of your party make up, good for you. If you do something stupid and it's hard, well I'm definately not giving you extra exp for that. I mean honestly, if we did what the OP wants, then we should dock exp from a party that has a cleric with any undead encounters because they can just turn and end the encounter right there and so, it's not a hard encounter. If the cleric is dumb enough to not use turning, then what, we give them more exp for being dumb? NO I think not. The fact that the DM took pity and GAVE you 500 more exp then you should have is something you should be grateful for, not something to complain about. You guys choose to play a bunch of fighter types. Well guess what, that means sometimes you will have a hard time, and sometimes it will be easy. Did you ever complain that an encounter was TOO easy and you guys should get less exp? If you did not, then you have NO grounds for your complaint. It works both ways. You can't get stanard exp for easy encounters because your a bunch of fighters and get MORE exp when it gets hard because your a bunch of fighters.
I adjust exp for the following reasons.
1) The enemy had a terrain advantage (+1-2)
2) The players had a terrain advantage (-1-2)
3) The enemy had sufficent prep time (+1)
4) The players had sufficent prep time (-1)
5) The creature after doing a straight takes 10 vs an iconic party of 4 play test (and played well BTW) yeilds to be either extremely over or under CR. BTW, a vrock is CR 8-9 IF it summons for this BTW.
If the creature is harder because you rolled poorly...too bad. If it's easier because you rolled well...then good for you. If it's harder because of your party make up...too bad. If it's easier because of your party make up, good for you. If you do something stupid and it's hard, well I'm definately not giving you extra exp for that. I mean honestly, if we did what the OP wants, then we should dock exp from a party that has a cleric with any undead encounters because they can just turn and end the encounter right there and so, it's not a hard encounter. If the cleric is dumb enough to not use turning, then what, we give them more exp for being dumb? NO I think not. The fact that the DM took pity and GAVE you 500 more exp then you should have is something you should be grateful for, not something to complain about. You guys choose to play a bunch of fighter types. Well guess what, that means sometimes you will have a hard time, and sometimes it will be easy. Did you ever complain that an encounter was TOO easy and you guys should get less exp? If you did not, then you have NO grounds for your complaint. It works both ways. You can't get stanard exp for easy encounters because your a bunch of fighters and get MORE exp when it gets hard because your a bunch of fighters.
QFT, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If the creature is harder because you rolled poorly...too bad.
Hopefully as a DM you start to fugde rolls if this happened very often, but otherwise I pretty much agree entierly with your post.
Hopefully as a DM you start to fugde rolls if this happened very often, but otherwise I pretty much agree entierly with your post.
Well if it's REALLY bad, then I fudge the roll so they don't all die...but I don't give them extra exp for it ;) .
But I'm gonna hafta go w/the ppl here that say you have no reason to complain, you got an extra +50% xp for the encounter.
When (as has been stated), you technically only were entitled to the inital CR 9 award (if you're a rules lawyer as you say, then be happy by the 'proper rules' and minus that extra 50% xp off your character).
and, as has been stated, not every creature everywhere is gonna amass a huge amount of treasure. Especially if a creature is from another plane and recently summoned. Where's the time to raid/murder etc. in order to collect the treasure?
the tables in dmg are just guidelines for wealth.
My own group (between level 4 - 7 depending on the paticular player), has nowhere near what the DMG says, due to just some bad luck on the parties part. but no ones complained.
Also, i dont agree w/adding on extra xp just because the fight went poorly for the pc's. does that mean if they do very well in a given combat you should subtract xp b/c none of them go touched? They're adventurers, the threat of death is a daily thing for them. (in dungeons etc.)
if the rolls go against em, yea they can die. part of the game.
My group I play with, our party wizard has died 3 times (and our thief died once due to a failed trap find roll lol).
I mean it sucks, but whatever, we band our gold together to ressurect em.
I dunno, id say if your entire group (or the majority) feels the way you do then say something to the DM n see if he dishes out more loot. If not, well either deal w/it, or quit n find a more loot-happy DM.
based on your equipment i don't think you're doing that bad. one last thing, why wont ur DM let you identify the hammer? how can he stop you. cast identify (or have a wizard do it) and bam. by the rules of the spell 'identifies all magical properties' or... sell it for the 10,000gp n use that cash to buy a magic weapon that you want.
I never said save or die spells wheren't unbalancing, mainly because this thread isn't talking about the outcome of a save or die spell.
Well, you said I shouldn't penalize my players for good luck by surviving the SoD and the Vorpal stuff, so I take it that you believe abilities that do not affect the combat but are calculated into the CR are entirely fine.
As for WoTC making errors, well Ill gladly hear any alternative system you've obviosly made yourself. By playing this game you've show that you aren't bothered that much by them.
As a matter of fact, in the group where we had this fight, we did away with the XP system altogether, giving out the Level-Ups when the DM feels it is appropriate storywise. Since there are nearly no situations for this group where XP are expended otherwise (no wishes, no item creation), this works out fine for us. I believe that when the existing system makes no real sense for anyone (as I asked: What do XP stand for?), even DM Fiat is preferable.
Finally, the key I use for determining a challange is that the party should exsapend roughly 20% of their resources in a fight against a monsters whose CR = the parties average level. If its greatly more or less than I change the XP award, (privided its down to anything aside poor tactics from the PCs)
So... do you change it for brilliant tactics of the PCs (expending less ressources)? Good rolls? Bad rolls? Information gathering resulting in being prepared/not prepared for the encounter in question?
Essentially my advice is, as much as possible, try to limit the metagaming, that allows you to predict XP, or treasure, or whatever.
I suggest, play your character, in the role. If he's feeling like he needs more treasure, take the in game actions that would net same.
If he hasn't got piad for four months, I'd go for "Yo, mates, we need to escort a caravan, for high pay" ..or whatever.
Railing that the DM isn't running the game the way you'd prefer is valid, of course, but if so, then just speak to him directly out of game, and say, just that...
"I'm wondering why we haven't got treasure for four months, real time."
If he's the type that doesn't take well to being challenged, then challenge and take the result, deal with it as it is "Playing your PC, and worrying about Treasure and XP and such as the character", or walk.
I'm not saying dseal or walk, I'm saying deal with the DM, which you seem reluctant to do, thus you've posted here.
You're seeking advice on how to deal with the DM?
Just do it. Because he gets defensive, when called upon to explain himself, that's a major fault in a good DM. I'm not saying he's not good, nor all DMs perfect, but not taking deserved criticism is a major flaw, whether the DM is a narcissist, or a control freak or for low self esteem, or whatever reason.
If he's messing up, he needs to be able to listen to the players.
If he doesn't then their options are to deal, keep on conflicting with the DM in an ongoing power / dominance / control struggle, or... in the end, walk.
Good luck. I think your initial posts did much to mis-convey your position, OP.
at the end of that point all i had was the aformentiond above, while the next poorest person had 23.5K in stuff, and the richest had about 34K more than that.
A Demon wouldn't summon another demon like that, it's a last call ability. If they summon one they owe them their live and they don't like that. So you shouldn't have loose that much hp because he was not supposed to call another at the beginning of the battle. Maybe at 10%-20% hp but even there, most demon prefer retreating and come back later than fight to death or call for help.
It's just a matter of interpretation. The one you tell about is not the only one. For example the summoned demon may be a slave of the summoning one, thus wouldn't owe a life debt. The summoned demon may owe a favor to the summoning one. Besides they are demons: they want a chance of coming into the material plane and spread destruction, so the summoning demon may actually do a favor to the summoned one. And, being chaotic creatures, having a debt towards another demon may mean nothing: what's a life debt to a creature used to betrayal and mischief?
And, being chaotic creatures, having a debt towards another demon may mean nothing: what's a life debt to a creature used to betrayal and mischief?
That is an interesting point. It reminds of an evil campaign where in the middle of combat someone reminded the party rogue he was in debt to him, so when there was one enemy left the rogue stabbed the other PC, and was suddenly debt free. I think this(or similar situations) will be the case when a lower level demon tries to collect a fee from a higher level one unless he has backup.