PDA

View Full Version : XP and Experience



megabyter5
2011-03-18, 12:48 PM
Much to my chagrin, I've noticed a trend of people treating XP as a commodity representing how many monsters you've killed. In my opinion, the whole point of "experience points" is just that: a measure of your character's life experience. In real life, our experiences are what make us grow as human beings. In an RPG, it's the same deal. If you slay a dragon, that's an experience. If you explore an abandoned crypt for ancient artifacts, that's an experience. If you're invited for an audience with a local lord, that's an experience. Can you really just ignore the latter because you didn't kill anything in the process? If you ask me, no.

What does the playground think? Have you ever had an experience about experience? Do you agree or disagree? Did you not read it because you were too busy thinking about how much XP you'd get if you killed me?

Kylarra
2011-03-18, 01:05 PM
That's why you have things like roleplaying exp and "solving encounter" exp and so on, or in the case of the majority of games I play, getting rid of the granting experience for killing things model altogether. The games I still play with exp are flat experience/session granted.

Totally Guy
2011-03-18, 01:17 PM
I like how Mouse Guard does it best.

To advance a skill with rating N you must succeed in using it N times and fail N-1 times.

In a conflict like a fight you just get to mark one pass/fail per skill. So using lots of different skill and moves is encouraged.

But nothing is more awesome when, in the middle of a fight. Bam! My skill got better!

Kol Korran
2011-03-18, 01:39 PM
to me experience presents significant advances in a character's life, marked by accomplishments. i don't award XP for just encounters, or RP experience, or the like. instead i award XP for Accomplishments. I divide these to the followings:

Campaign predetermined accomplishments: these usually comprise the main type of XP awards i give. first i take the campaign and divide it into parts, then adventures, then i list all the kinds of main accomplishments the characters CAN theoretically make. some will be known from the start, some will be revealed in the normal course of events, some are however hidden, or subtle, (find the spy that keeps giving away the character's plan, complete the relic of the lost king etc). then i try and calculate the XP for that accomplishment. it is comprised out of the "normal" route of encounter CRs the party might take, and also some ad hoc experience for special challenges (i rarely use just monsters and traps). the party can gain this by the normal way, or be smart, or dumb, or whatever. in any case- it's the same accomplishments. you'de be surprised at how much this method increases smart gaming.
personal accomplishments: this depends on the party as a whole and each player- what are their goals? what would constitute a meaningful evolving experience for them? i try to put in challenges (mostly RP challenges, usually over several not jointed encounters) that calls for evolvement from the player. no matter how it ended up (as long as s/he didn't flat out ignore it), i give XP. for the whole party (this is to encourage helping other characters than yourself, to bind the party more together, and not to "punish" those less focused on RP). this sometime refers to the whole party- a shaking experience they had together.
surprise accomplishments: the party sometimes succeeds in doing something they, and me, didn't plan or prepare for, but has an effect on the world, and on them as well. i award this as well, though usually only next session, when i have time to think about how much it might be worth.


this is my approach. not exactly "experience for experience", but i think quite close. :smallamused:

erikun
2011-03-18, 01:58 PM
I prefer the way World of Darkness treats experience - you get a set amount of experience for accomplishing a specific goal. How you go about it is entirely up to you. Want to clear the goblins out of the cavern system nearby the kingdom? You get the same experience from sneaking in and assassinating the leader as you do from setting up negotiations and Dominating the leader, or diverting a river and flooding the place, or hiring mercenaries to take care of the job for you, or running down there and killing every last one yourself. Wandering around the forest and killing random encounters doesn't grant you XP, because it doesn't aid you in any goal you are trying for. (It certainly still burns through resources, though.)

megabyter5
2011-03-18, 02:13 PM
... You get the same experience from ... hiring mercenaries to take care of the job for you

But that means that you can grow in personal power just by paying someone to do something for you.

tyckspoon
2011-03-18, 02:21 PM
But that means that you can grow in personal power just by paying someone to do something for you.

And in 'just paying someone to do something for you', you had to find out how to locate people who had the skills you needed. Get in touch with them, because they don't necessarily *want* to be found. Convince them to do the job, and negotiate the pay for it. You did stuff, you get XP for it. The people you hired incidentally *also* get XP for it, which means they're a more potent resource for you if you have similar jobs you need done in the future. Yay for everybody!

And sure, you might use that gained XP to train your personal combat skills instead. That's not any weirder than going down there, clearing out those caves personally, and then investing all your resulting skill points in Diplomacy.

dob
2011-03-18, 02:23 PM
But that means that you can grow in personal power just by paying someone to do something for you.

What's the problem with that? There are still challenges, they're just different. You have to acquire the money with which to pay the mercenaries. You have to find them, convince them to work for you, make sure they actually do the job, don't double-cross you, deal with the consequences if they fail and it's traced back to you, etc.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 02:42 PM
In my opinion, the whole point of "experience points" is just that: a measure of your character's life experience.

I hope these magic items were worth it. I had to forget the third grade to make them.

erikun
2011-03-18, 02:45 PM
But that means that you can grow in personal power just by paying someone to do something for you.
And? Kings, Generals, and Politicians get experience for doing their jobs, even if they aren't on the forefront and killing stuff with their bare hands. Organizing people, finances, diplomancy and alliances is just as worthy of gaining experience as finding new ways to mutilate a corpse.

And besides, I don't see a problem with allowing a player to face a challange however they wish. If they want to be the head of an army? Let them be the head of an army. Note that low-level characters will likely be short on the funds and notoriety needed to assemble the high-grade army that a high level character could.

MickJay
2011-03-18, 06:06 PM
Few loose thoughts here. XP is something you gain by doing things, acting, and learning. This may or may not involve combat, and D&D is not the only system where you can get it for killing/destroying opponents.
However, the way it's done in D&D is, intentionally or not, pretty dark: XPs are not just an abstract thing which, when you have enough of it, makes you understand the world better (leveling up). You may also spend it to fuel spells and to craft items, it represents something that exists in a "physical" form. When you realize that the main occupation of the PCs in D&D games comes down to amassing this precious life energy by, more often than not, killing sentient beings, the whole system starts looking rather sinister. That cloak your character bought recently? It's been made out of a small village of goblins. That blessed, magic armor your paladin has? Better not ask who got killed for the XP that took to make. :smalltongue:

navar100
2011-03-18, 06:25 PM
DMs can be equally as guilty of this as players. Some DMs like to boast how they'll run a session where no or very little dice are rolled because everyone is roleplaying engaging in the story. I've played in such sessions, and they are fun. It's also metagame relaxing to just chill and take a break from the inherent stress in combat. The problem is DMs giving little or no XP for these sessions. If there is no game mechanics reward for engaging roleplay, players will get antsy when they've been level 5 for 3 real world months already playing one game a week.

Real time passes in the real world often at a greater rate than in the game. What's only a week in game can be a month or more out of game. That is a lot of energy spent living and playing. If there's nothing to show for it, i.e. no XP for roleplaying commensurate with combat (acceptable a little less), players will tire of the roleplay. You can only "play house" so much before you want to get back to "cops and robbers" already. With playing house giving little reward, players are going to want to play and care about cops and robbers a lot more.

Another_Poet
2011-03-18, 09:38 PM
If you slay a dragon, that's an experience. If you explore an abandoned crypt for ancient artifacts, that's an experience. If you're invited for an audience with a local lord, that's an experience. Can you really just ignore the latter because you didn't kill anything in the process? If you ask me, no.

The only way I ever learn anything is if I kill something in the process. College was... messy.

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-18, 11:40 PM
If you explore an abandoned crypt for ancient artifacts, that's an experience. If you're invited for an audience with a local lord, that's an experience. Can you really just ignore the latter because you didn't kill anything in the process? If you ask me, no.

Which is precisely why you get XP for overcoming challenges and not for killing stuff. Meeting a local baron or knight or whatever just to say "Hi, what's up?" You don't get any experience for that because there wasn't any challenge in any of it- you just hung out for a while.

Now, if you were to convince him to take action against the marauding orcs that are threatening to destroy a neighboring settlement, then yeah, you should get XP for it. You overcame the challenge of not only convincing him there was a potential threat, but also that there was merit in handling it now instead of waiting until the danger had time to grow.

The reason people tend to think "XP = killing stuff" is because killing stuff is the most common (or at least most visible) challenge adventurers tend to encounter. Telling stories of how you defended yourself from a horde of monsters tends to grab more attention than the stories of how you had dinner with the duke and debated with him for four hours about whether it would be a good idea to use military force to handle a potential threat (but only after spending an hour and a half convincing him there was a potential threat at all.) That's why people remember them more.

Bobikus
2011-03-19, 02:43 AM
I hope these magic items were worth it. I had to forget the third grade to make them.

XP as a crafting component has never made the slightest sense at all to me because of thoughts like this.

Privateer
2011-03-19, 03:42 AM
You did stuff, you get XP for it. The people you hired incidentally *also* get XP for it, which means they're a more potent resource for you if you have similar jobs you need done in the future. Yay for everybody!


And that's when the king hires a count, who hires a baron, who hires a knight, who hires an adventurer, who hires another adventurer, who knows somebody, who hires a subcontractor, who hires another subcontractor ... <snipped> ... who bribes his cat with a can of tuna to finally kill the rat that needed killing. And everybody along the chain gets XP for doing nothing but creating a giant bureaucracy. :smallbiggrin:

Not saying it's bad to give XP for non-combat actions, but you have to watch out to make sure it doesn't turn absurd.

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-19, 05:57 AM
XP as a crafting component has never made the slightest sense at all to me because of thoughts like this.

XP isn't memories and was never stated or even implied to be anything like it, at least as far as I'm aware. It's more like your lifeforce, sort of an expansion of your soul. Ever watch Highlander? The Quickening is kinda like XP.

Yahzi
2011-03-19, 07:02 AM
Much to my chagrin, I've noticed a trend of people treating XP as a commodity representing how many monsters you've killed
In my world, that's the rules.

XP = Loot is actually the way the game is supposed to be played. It fixes a lot of problems.

Just make XP interchangable with Gold Pieces (at 1 to 5), and you will be amazed how many things in D&D suddenly make sense.

To elaborate:

XP comes from death. When a commoner dies, he gives out XP appropriate to a CR 1/2 encounter. Now this XP can be harvested no matter how he dies, so the local lord collects a death tax of all the XP from a community (that's roughly 2 deaths per 100 people per year).

The lord invests this XP into protecting the community - which, in D&D, means giving himself levels, since 1 high lvl > many low levels. Still, he needs mooks and helpers (and eventually a replacement) so he gives some of the XP to his followers. Or gives it to a wizard in exchange for magic items.

This produces a medieval economy where the number of peasants you control = the amount of power you have. Adventurers don't have fiefs and plantations, so they go out and kill monsters for XP (the monsters, of course, have plantations of their own peasant class, like goblins or orcs).

Now look how much this solves. The PCs can't push around the local lords anymore - the King is not only rich, he is powerful, because in D&D those mean the same thing. The highest level dude around is the local ruler. The DM can figure out what level that guy is, and how many troops he has, based on the size of his holdings - and the players can figure it out too, meaning they know who to be scared of and who they can push around.

High-levels having castles for the peasants to hide in makes sense, because those peasants are the source of their income. Clerics caring about their flock - same thing. Wizards selling items make sense - they make a net profit on the XP, so they can go up levels just by catering to loser fighter-types.

Side-quests to level up before taking on the big bad? Killing monsters just for the XP/Loot? All of these are features of D&D, and now they make sense. Genies spawning wishes? Sorry, somebody has to pay XP for those wishes. The Genie will give you a free one 'cause you called him, but it comes out of his pocket. He can't give you more. Shadows spawning all over the world? Sorry but it takes XP to make a magical monster (as much for a CR 3 monster as for a Lvl 3 character); that whole village only makes 1 or 2 Shadows and meanwhile the local lord is coming to protect his property.

Seriously, it just fixes so much. And players love it, since they can use their XP for levels, or henchmen, or magic items, or just gold. It empowers them over an whole 'nother level of the game. :smallsmile:



When you realize that the main occupation of the PCs in D&D games comes down to amassing this precious life energy by, more often than not, killing sentient beings, the whole system starts looking rather sinister. That cloak your character bought recently? It's been made out of a small village of goblins.
You are so right on that. I will have more to say on the subject... later. :smallbiggrin:

Totally Guy
2011-03-19, 07:44 AM
They should have said that from the start!

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-19, 07:59 AM
They should have said that from the start!

I seem to recall that in previous editions they pretty much did.

tyckspoon
2011-03-19, 09:49 AM
Not saying it's bad to give XP for non-combat actions, but you have to watch out to make sure it doesn't turn absurd.

XP systems in the way D&D does it are going to become absurd at some point pretty much regardless, unless you take Yahzi's route and make it a real in-world resource- even if you manage to smooth out all the weirdness in how you gain XP, you still face the utter disconnect between what you did to get it and what you actually improve with it; it is absurd that you can stab a bunch of kobolds in the face and get better at handling yourself at court for it, or negotiate the tricky intrigues of guild politics and figure out how to be a better swordsman because of that.. but that's how XP and leveling works.

aje8
2011-03-19, 11:32 PM
I just generally say, "Ok, you guys level up" every so often. Actually keeping track of exp, whether you award it for roleplaying, goals achieved or puzzle solving, is just too much trouble.

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-20, 12:51 AM
I just generally say, "Ok, you guys level up" every so often. Actually keeping track of exp, whether you award it for roleplaying, goals achieved or puzzle solving, is just too much trouble.

I'm always curious how people who do this handle item crafting.

olthar
2011-03-20, 01:01 AM
I seem to recall that in previous editions they pretty much did.

Not pretty much. First edition directly awarded exp for loot gained.

tyckspoon
2011-03-20, 01:09 AM
I'm always curious how people who do this handle item crafting.

I mostly ignore it. Crafting xp costs are fairly trivial unless you're going to do something like take a year off to do nothing but churn off magic gear; the real practical costs of crafting are gold and spare time to do it.

Mastikator
2011-03-20, 06:03 AM
When I DM, you gain exp for accomplishments, overcoming challanging obstacles, and most importantly of all, roleplaying convincingly.
Killing someone in his sleep = no exp.
Neutralzing (with, or without killing) a dangerous foe = exp
Doing what's true to character > overcoming the dangerous foe

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-20, 06:11 AM
When I DM, you gain exp for accomplishments, overcoming challanging obstacles, and most importantly of all, roleplaying convincingly.
Killing someone in his sleep = no exp.
Neutralzing (with, or without killing) a dangerous foe = exp
Doing what's true to character > overcoming the dangerous foe

So would I get more XP if I fought by walking on my hands and kicking people in the face with my bare feet (assuming I win) than if I were to walk on my feet and use a sword?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-20, 06:43 AM
When I DM, you gain exp for accomplishments, overcoming challanging obstacles, and most importantly of all, roleplaying convincingly.
Killing someone in his sleep = no exp.
Neutralzing (with, or without killing) a dangerous foe = exp
Doing what's true to character > overcoming the dangerous foe

So, they get xp for playing dumb...

Killing or otherwise incapacitating someone in his sleep IS neutralizing a dangerous foe. It's a very logical way to overcome obstacles.

Warlawk
2011-03-20, 02:43 PM
So, they get xp for playing dumb...

Killing or otherwise incapacitating someone in his sleep IS neutralizing a dangerous foe. It's a very logical way to overcome obstacles.

Was going to make a similar comment. If the target is a level appropriate challenge it's usually much tougher to manage to get to him in his sleep than it is to just walk up and ubercharge one shot him.

Mastikator
2011-03-20, 07:13 PM
So would I get more XP if I fought by walking on my hands and kicking people in the face with my bare feet (assuming I win) than if I were to walk on my feet and use a sword?

No. Why would you even think that. I was saying that roleplaying convincingly is worth more experience than succeeding at their given task. Of course, you get even more experience if you do both, but sometimes you have to choose between losing because of a character flaw and metagaming and I want there to be an incentive to stay true to character even in those situations.


So, they get xp for playing dumb...

Killing or otherwise incapacitating someone in his sleep IS neutralizing a dangerous foe. It's a very logical way to overcome obstacles.
They get exp for playing dumb if their characters are dumb, yes. Obviously, I want all my players to have thought out a personality to go with their character, so they have something to roleplay. It's not a competition on who can whip out the most damage or kill mobs the fastest, or even get past the greatest number of puzzles. At least not when I DM.

A sleeping foe is already neutralized. Unless there's some great fear that the foe will wake up. The only way you'd get exp for killing a sleeping defenseless foe is that you're playing an assassin or serial killer or something, and that'd be roleplaying exp.


When it comes to roleplaying vs rollplaying, computer games do a better job at rollplaying. I do not understand why anyone would choose to play a pen & paper roleplaying game if they just wanted to kill mobs and collect score points.

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-21, 06:34 AM
No. Why would you even think that.

Because you implied very heavily that you don't give XP to the PCs when they act intelligently. I took this to its logical conclusion and figured that PCs acting like morons would earn them extra XP.

Mastikator
2011-03-21, 07:43 AM
What exactly do you mean by "PC acting intelligently"?

If it means that the player who plays a wizard won't cast baleful polymorph on a lich because he knows that liches are immune to polymorph when his character doesn't know this. Then no, I'd consider that metagaming (in my book cheating).

It's not as simple as "acting dumb" and "acting intelligent", the characters have personalities and priories. It's not world of warcraft (or some other MMO of your choice).
Like I said, if you just want to minmax (which is fine), then you'd be happier with a MMO since that scene does a better job at what you want.

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-21, 07:53 AM
Killing someone in his sleep = no exp.


That kinda jumped out at me. Waiting until a foe makes himself vulnerable then taking full advantage of that strikes me as a pretty intelligent thing to do.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-21, 07:55 AM
That kinda jumped out at me. Waiting until a foe makes himself vulnerable then taking full advantage of that strikes me as a pretty intelligent thing to do.

Intelligent, but not a very teaching experience after the first couple of times.

erikun
2011-03-21, 08:02 AM
Intelligent, but not a very teaching experience after the first couple of times.
Which ends up being the same things and getting rewarded for being dumb. Run around banging pot lids to wake everyone up = stupid = guaranteed XP. Killing someone in their sleep so that they don't wake up during another fight = intelligent = guaranteed no XP. The characters are rewarded for acting unintelligently and end up far stronger by sticking their heads into hornet nests everywhere they go.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-21, 08:10 AM
Which ends up being the same things and getting rewarded for being dumb. Run around banging pot lids to wake everyone up = stupid = guaranteed XP. Killing someone in their sleep so that they don't wake up during another fight = intelligent = guaranteed no XP. The characters are rewarded for acting unintelligently and end up far stronger by sticking their heads into hornet nests everywhere they go.

It's not my fault you are playing a game where XP is granted for defeating enemies. :smalltongue:

Shpadoinkle
2011-03-21, 08:13 AM
Which ends up being the same things and getting rewarded for being dumb. Run around banging pot lids to wake everyone up = stupid = guaranteed XP. Killing someone in their sleep so that they don't wake up during another fight = intelligent = guaranteed no XP. The characters are rewarded for acting unintelligently and end up far stronger by sticking their heads into hornet nests everywhere they go.

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to make. I'm not very eloquent sometimes.

hewhosaysfish
2011-03-21, 08:15 AM
I was saying that roleplaying convincingly is worth more experience than succeeding at their given task.
Did you?

The part that people seem to be taking objection to is the apparent assumption that doing something the hard way means that you're acting in character and vice-versa.



Killing someone in his sleep = no exp.
Neutralzing (with, or without killing) a dangerous foe = exp
Doing what's true to character > overcoming the dangerous foe


So the guy who wants to roleplay, creeps into the villains bedroom at night, shivs him and is told "Congratulations! You killed your nemesis; here is a shiny thing roleplay exp! But only one shiny thing, because he was asleep when you killed him."
Meanwhile the "rollplayer" bursts in through the door, yelling a battle cry and (for his actions) is told "Congratulations! You killed your nemesis; here is a shiny thing. And have a second shiny thing, for the combat!"

It seems that more reward is given to the player whose actions you disapprove of, while less is given for what you want to encourage.

Warlawk
2011-03-21, 09:27 AM
If it means that the player who plays a wizard won't cast baleful polymorph on a lich because he knows that liches are immune to polymorph when his character doesn't know this. Then no, I'd consider that metagaming (in my book cheating).


Maybe that's just a bad choice of example? Personally I would consider it absolutely basic knowledge that polymorph effects don't work on things of that nature. I mean, like DC 5 spellcraft check that you can take 10 on. There are a lot of monster details that you might need the appropriate knowledge for, but something like that is so painfully basic for any spellcaster that it just doesn't make sense to be nitpicky about it. By the time you can fight a lich, even trying to say that a wizard doesn't know polymoprh won't work on him is the height of ridiculousness.



It's not as simple as "acting dumb" and "acting intelligent", the characters have personalities and priories. It's not world of warcraft (or some other MMO of your choice).
Like I said, if you just want to minmax (which is fine), then you'd be happier with a MMO since that scene does a better job at what you want.

Welcome to the Stormwind Fallacy. Just to be clear, it's not helping your position any. Optimization and RP are completely separate. Now, I'm one of the first on the forum to crack jokes at all the water orc half ogre half minotaur half gorgon half dragon feral mineral warrior characters that crop up, because they're flat ridiculous from an RP standpoint that IMO should always be priority 1. However, a few bad eggs on internet forums who likely have never actually sat down and played a real game with a group does not change the fact that one is not exclusive of the other.

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind
Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Mastikator
2011-03-21, 10:00 AM
@Warlawk

Why, precisely, would any given mid- or high level wizard know that liches are immune to (amongst other things) polymorph effects? Knowledge about the undead is a Knowledge (Religion) check, not all wizards have first (or even second) hand experience with liches.
If it's a necromancer, or aspiring lich, or simply has ranks in Knowledge (Religion), or simply has been told/seen it then that's fine. But no, there's a lot of player knowledge that characters simply don't have, even the intelligent and educated ones.


I am aware of the Stormwind fallacy, yes, optimizing and roleplaying can co-exist, a lot of times they do, a lot of times the character has enough knowledge to know what the logical thing to do is, and the character is often rational enough to pick that choice. But a lot of times (at least in my experience) they do collude, and I'm not even talking about what I see on this board, (most people here don't have roleplaying at the top of their priorities. How can I tell? Simple, if you think that a character with no outstanding skills is useless, then you're not considering the roleplay aspect).
Of course you can optimize, but not at the expense of roleplaying quality.


@hewhosaysfish You are either twisting my words or you misunderstand what I am saying.
I'm gonna give you the benefit of doubt here and explain what I mean, because your objections do not apply to my statements.

If you play a sneaky character and sneak into your nemesis's bedroom and kill him in his sleep, you get roleplay exp for roleplaying a sneaky character. And you get success exp for successfully sneaking into his room.
If you play a loud character and kick down the door and kill him while he's just waking up and still pretty defenseless, then you get roleplay exp and success exp.
The roleplay exp is about twice as big as the success exp, and applies if you roleplay well, which will depend on the kind of character you want to roleplay.
If you want to play a character who doesn't want to kill people, and would rather talk your way out of situations then you could talk to the nemesis and settle the score without blood being spilled and still get the same amount of exp as the previous two, and you'd still get 2/3s of the exp if the nemesis is unreasonable.
However, if you sneak in an kill the nemesis despite being against killing then you'd only get success exp. Unless you announce in advance (to the DM) that your character wants to change his way and loosen up on his morals.

But roleplaying doesn't stop there. My campaigns are not about killing a nemesis, or BBEG. Most of the times the quests are not clearly defined, they make their own goals. The meat of the roleplaying comes when the characters are talking to each other and other NPC's, it's what they believe and what they say.

It doesn't mean that you always have to pick the most retarded course of action. It just means that you have to stay true to character. And yes, you can choose your characters personality.

Warlawk
2011-03-21, 02:22 PM
@Warlawk

Why, precisely, would any given mid- or high level wizard know that liches are immune to (amongst other things) polymorph effects? Knowledge about the undead is a Knowledge (Religion) check, not all wizards have first (or even second) hand experience with liches.
If it's a necromancer, or aspiring lich, or simply has ranks in Knowledge (Religion), or simply has been told/seen it then that's fine. But no, there's a lot of player knowledge that characters simply don't have, even the intelligent and educated ones.

I absolutely stand by my statement. Spellcraft or knowledge arcana with an incredibly low DC. I would consider that automatic knowledge for any spellcaster basically. Can you baleful polymorph a chair? Nope... you, as the caster of the spell are perfectly aware that it doesn't work on things without anatomy. That includes undead of all sorts undead, constructs etc. It lists it in the spell, it is basic knowledge that is included simply from learning the spell. If you know the spell, you know what it works on.

Now, correctly identifying a lich is a completely different subject, but knowing that your polymorph effect won't work on one... I stand by my position.

hewhosaysfish
2011-03-21, 03:16 PM
You are either twisting my words or you misunderstand what I am saying.


I'm not understanding. I'm not understanding how these statements these two statements can be reconciled:


Killing someone in his sleep = no exp.

If you play a sneaky character and sneak into your nemesis's bedroom and kill him in his sleep, you get roleplay exp for roleplaying a sneaky character. And you get success exp for successfully sneaking into his room.

The second statement, I can't argue with*.
The first, I can/have/am/will argue with.
Both at once makes my brain hurt.



*Except to the extent that this is the internet, and therefore it's possible for perople to argue about anything.

Mastikator
2011-03-21, 03:42 PM
I absolutely stand by my statement. Spellcraft or knowledge arcana with an incredibly low DC. I would consider that automatic knowledge for any spellcaster basically. Can you baleful polymorph a chair? Nope... you, as the caster of the spell are perfectly aware that it doesn't work on things without anatomy. That includes undead of all sorts undead, constructs etc. It lists it in the spell, it is basic knowledge that is included simply from learning the spell. If you know the spell, you know what it works on.

Now, correctly identifying a lich is a completely different subject, but knowing that your polymorph effect won't work on one... I stand by my position.

You can't compare a chair to a lich. A chair is the wrong target type, a lich isn't and instead has a template-granted immunity to polymorph. Other undead creatures can be targeted by polymorph. Liches aren't common, their traits aren't everyday information. By RAW it takes at least Knowledge (Religion) DC 21 check to know it's immune (since a lich is at least a CL 11 caster). It's not basic knowledge.



@hewhosaysfish
The first was a general statement with no assumptions about the circumstances made. Killing some random joe, even if said joe is powerful, in his sleep, for no reason other than increasing your kill count does not give exp.
Unless, of course, that you are playing a serial killer (or some other roleplaying reason to kill said joe)

erikun
2011-03-21, 04:35 PM
Why, precisely, would any given mid- or high level wizard know that liches are immune to (amongst other things) polymorph effects? Knowledge about the undead is a Knowledge (Religion) check, not all wizards have first (or even second) hand experience with liches.
The wizard will be familiar with the details of his own spell, presumably. This includes that the spell only targets creatures, not objects, and that it requires a fortitude save. (Actually, it would be an in-character reason, such as "makes a direct change upon the physical body", with the same effect.) The character wouldn't need to roll to determine if a Lich in particular is immune to that particular spell. The character would just need to determine if undead are, in general, immune to fortitude saves ("direct changes upon the physical body"). Determining the basic properities for a monster type are far simplier, and probably not much more than a DC 10 to determine, and would be simple even untrained for anyone with an intelligence bonus.

Saying that wizards need to roll to remember how basic properities of undead interact with their own spells would be like saying that brain surgeons would need to roll to remember where the brain is located on a particular person. Yes, each person is different, but not in a way related to their area of expertise (brain location or vulnerability to a specific spell).

[EDIT] Actually, I think I see the confusion. All undead are immune to Baleful Polymorph, and so a very simple roll would determine that a Lich is immune (assuming you could easily identify the target as a Lich). Normal undead are, however, vulnerable to Polymorph and Object, and so you would need to roll the higher Lich DC to identify specifically that a Lich is immune to polymorph effects.

Narren
2011-03-21, 06:47 PM
The wizard will be familiar with the details of his own spell, presumably. This includes that the spell only targets creatures, not objects, and that it requires a fortitude save. (Actually, it would be an in-character reason, such as "makes a direct change upon the physical body", with the same effect.) The character wouldn't need to roll to determine if a Lich in particular is immune to that particular spell. The character would just need to determine if undead are, in general, immune to fortitude saves ("direct changes upon the physical body"). Determining the basic properities for a monster type are far simplier, and probably not much more than a DC 10 to determine, and would be simple even untrained for anyone with an intelligence bonus.

Saying that wizards need to roll to remember how basic properities of undead interact with their own spells would be like saying that brain surgeons would need to roll to remember where the brain is located on a particular person. Yes, each person is different, but not in a way related to their area of expertise (brain location or vulnerability to a specific spell).

[EDIT] Actually, I think I see the confusion. All undead are immune to Baleful Polymorph, and so a very simple roll would determine that a Lich is immune (assuming you could easily identify the target as a Lich). Normal undead are, however, vulnerable to Polymorph and Object, and so you would need to roll the higher Lich DC to identify specifically that a Lich is immune to polymorph effects.

I know undead fall under Knowledge (Religion), but it is that much of a stretch to ALSO let Knowledge (Arcana) cover a lich?

Mastikator
2011-03-21, 07:05 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm

I don't see anything here about all undead being immune to baleful polymorph. Citation on all undead being immune to baleful polymorph needed.
As far as I know, you can polymorph a zombie human into a zombie squirrel. You can do it on a skeleton, on a wight, on a ghoul, mummy and even vampire. Without knowing specific things about the lich type, there's no reason to assume that the lich would be immune when all the other corporeal undead are vulnerable to the spell.

tyckspoon
2011-03-21, 07:19 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm



Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

Target: One creature

There ya go. Baleful Polymorph does not affect objects, ergo undead are immune.

Kylarra
2011-03-21, 07:20 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm

I don't see anything here about all undead being immune to baleful polymorph. Citation on all undead being immune to baleful polymorph needed.
Here you go


Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

Target: One creature
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial; see text


edit: creepily swordsaged...

erikun
2011-03-21, 07:26 PM
I don't see anything here about all undead being immune to baleful polymorph. Citation on all undead being immune to baleful polymorph needed.
Undead Subtype Traits: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType)
"Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless)."
Baleful Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm)
"Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial; see text"

A zombie could be the target of Baleful Polymorph, but it wouldn't do anything beyond the spell requires a fortitude save and does not affect objects. I did point out that Polymorph Any Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm) works just fine on undead, given that it can target objects. (It won't work on a Lich due to its polymorph-immunity, of course.)


I know undead fall under Knowledge (Religion), but it is that much of a stretch to ALSO let Knowledge (Arcana) cover a lich?
Possibly not, given that Arcana is used to achieve Lichdom. Then again, it would be logical to say that Arcana just tells you how to make a Lich, while Religion tells you its properities.

Narren
2011-03-21, 09:25 PM
Possibly not, given that Arcana is used to achieve Lichdom. Then again, it would be logical to say that Arcana just tells you how to make a Lich, while Religion tells you its properities.

I tend to be liberal in my interpretation of what a Knowledge skill will cover, since they're underused and not as useful as many other skills.