DM doesn't want to award xp for combat

[AdamantlyD20]

Ok guys i have a terrifying dilemma, my DM, after realizing my character was extremely combat oriented, does not want to award XP for combat scenarios. I know a DM can "do whatever they want" but isn't that kinda one of the main ways characters advance? What should i tell him. for those who ask, He did not specify how, XP would be awarded instead.

[Der_DWSage]

Honestly, it's one of those situations where we need more information. You might be justified in worry, but perhaps he just intends people to level after certain intervals instead. Or he intends to give roleplay XP. Many people do the former, and a notable number do the latter.

I'd say cool your heels until you have confirmation that the sky is falling.

[Sidmen]

You kinda need to know how he does intend to award XP before this thread can go anywhere. I just finished running a game where XP wasn't rewarded based on combat whatsoever. It was instead awarded at the end of each session to give the speed of advancement that I wanted.

Its plenty justifiable to just strip XP out of the system and say "ok, you all leveled up this session - advance your characters before the next meetup" and leave it at that.

[Erik Vale]

Are you the only player/are other players getting combat xp?

You should be getting XP for overcoming challenges, one of the most obvious ones is combat, at most I could agree with the DM giving you a relative 'CR' hike causing you to earn less XP from combat, however that effects all the players. However roleplaying/inventive skill use/skill use are going to be your main ways of earning XP with a combat XP ban.

If the DM is however handing out combat XP to other characters, then you've got a pretty good reason to stop playng/roll up a different character.

[AdamantlyD20]

I'll ask tomorrow how he intends on awarding XP/ leveling. (This is also the same DM who used to try awarding xp based on number of kills per player instead of splitting evenly)... so i don't know what to think.

[Bhaakon]

I'd need to know how your DM is handling XP to judge. There are other ways to handle character advancement that work just fine without handing out combat XP. Some groups eschew XP completely, and just level up when the DM deems it appropriate.

If the DM is saying, "I'm going to give you all your XP for completing quests, and you can complete those quests in whatever manner you feel like," then you can still earn the XP by winning a series combats if you want. In fact, combat will still likely be a rather important part of quest-solving and XP earning, even if it removes some of the impetus for the PCs to turn into a pack of murder-hobos hunting down everything with an XP value (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO).

If the DM is saying, "I'm going to present you a series of problems that can only be solved by role play and skill checks, and not ever let you solve things and earn XP with violence," then yes, I think you've got a legit complaint. That's not even close to the game you signed on for.

[Spore]

There is a certain mentality of player that wants to kill each and everyone in their way "because they're worth experience points". Our DM gives us EXP for overcoming encounters. If we sneak past it? Full XP. If we fight it head-on? Full XP. If we sneak past it while they rape the princess? Half XP. If we fight them and provoke them to kill the hostage princess? Half XP. If we kill the helpless townsguard because he has a precious ring? No XP and a drop in alignment.

Not awarding XP for combat at all feels very unjustified for players with fighting characters. Just tell him that you have a problem with that style of play because you want to feel rewarded. After all it is plausible for a fighter to solve his problems with an axe to the face as much as it is for a wizard to solve problems with spells.

[Togath]

I'll ask tomorrow how he intends on awarding XP/ leveling. (This is also the same DM who used to try awarding xp based on number of kills per player instead of splitting evenly)... so i don't know what to think.

kills per player 0_o
It's a "defeated encounter" that gives xp by RAW, not a kill.

[AdamantlyD20]

i don't know what to do, the same DM changed an encounter after he underestimated our ability to fight back and defend ourselves., that i suspect he wanted to have a specific outcome: characters get captured. But didn't let us know this, and we were faced with 4 enemies with AK-47s. We start wailing back on them after being shot by 4 of them ( dealing 95 damage total to me) obviously I'm not going to be able to outrun an assault rifle, and I'll be damned if i go down without a fight. We manage to severely injure the enemies and all of a sudden 4 enemies turns into 12 enemies. I believe he wanted some specific outcome to take place and he wasn't getting his way and decided to fudge the numbers, and say that my critical hit that dealt 97 damage, " barely hurt a CR10" humanoid. He wanted us to get captured, not fight back. I'm designed to fight, to obliterate, not get captured by something that deals 1/3 the damage i can dish out. I would have rather been told " this fight is not a fight, or this is not meant to be won" put something on the table, don't just shoot the players and expect them to stand there and let it happen, of course we're going to fight back, i didn't spend hours designing this character so i can be told, " your superior combat abilities are not going to work against these average foes that are inferior in every way, but because i say so, you will lose the combat encounter"

[Bhaakon]

Don't know if this matters, but my alignment is NG, and party member is LE....

It could be a big, flashing warning sign, or it could be great. Mixed-alignment parties can go both ways, depending on the group and their style of play.

[Mystral]

So I guess healers stay level 1 in this dm's world?

[AdamantlyD20]

So I guess healers stay level 1 in this dm's world?

In the past, yea, basically if you weren't a two weapon fighter, a nova blasting mage, or a rapid fire archer, you didn't get combat xp, not even for buffing party members, you were awarded a smaller amount of "ad-hoc" xp for healing/buffing

[Thanatosia]

There is a certain mentality of player that wants to kill each and everyone in their way "because they're worth experience points". Our DM gives us EXP for overcoming encounters. If we sneak past it? Full XP. If we fight it head-on? Full XP. If we sneak past it while they rape the princess? Half XP.
That's just the standard game how it is designed RAW. A lot of people seem to overlook it, but the DMG does clearly state that if you overcome a challenge via other means then killing it in combat, it still rewards its Xp for its CR.

If the minotaur is guarding the treasure vault, and getting into the vault is the objective, then sneaking past it gives just as much xp as kiling it, by the DMG guidelines.

THis does get into kinda silly gray areas tho. What if the PCs sneak into the vault via some method where they never even knew the Minotaur guarding it existed? By the rules, they should still get xp for overcoming it as it was prepared as part of the vaults defenses that they bypassed.... but when you are getting xp from threats you didn't even know existed, things can feel a bit strange.

[Spore]

In the past, yea, basically if you weren't a two weapon fighter, a nova blasting mage, or a rapid fire archer, you didn't get combat xp, not even for buffing party members, you were awarded a smaller amount of "ad-hoc" xp for healing/buffing

Run the system into the ground. Have the fighter introduce a damage reduction and a mindless summoned undead deal a bit more damage to him than his DR is worth. Heal with Lesser Vigor.

Ask your DM about the XP a point healed is worth. Use up a Wand of Lesser Vigor, level up and demand WBL. Rinse and repeat. Infinite levels!

[Kesnit]

You may actually be getting XP behind the scenes.

I ran a short campaign a few years ago where the party was intended to level up at certain points. I built the campaign in such a way that if I gave out XP after each encounter, they would level at the point I wanted them to.

[Keneth]

Personally, I've stopped giving out any XP quite a while ago. Not only is the CR system completely borked, and consequently the reward system, but players really shouldn't feel the need to fight every single thing they come across.


If we sneak past it while they rape the princess? Half XP.

I think you meant full XP and a show, right? Right?! :belkar:

[Spore]

I think you meant full XP and a show, right? Right?! :belkar:

*sigh* EXP for roleplaying then.

[lytokk]

Typically, I hand out xp based on the actual difficulty of challenges, role playing, and a few tiny nuggets if someone gets a joke or pun that I put into the game. I don't like the CR system. You can build a level appropriate encounter according to the CR, and it almost kills the PCs. Even if they used good tactics. Alternatively, you create an encounter designed around the PCs losing and getting captured, and they breeze through it. I tend to give out more XP for actual challenges than I do for walks in the park.

Also, crafting grants xp rather than costing it, but its a slow xp gain. How else do you get level 10 experts who have never used a weapon in combat, yet are amazing blacksmiths?

[Ansem]

Each thing you kill/defeat/solve has an XP reward to the difficulty/challange rating associated to it.
Take a campaign module for example and you need to get info and some equipment of a Dwarf Wizard crafter, killing him grants the XP, using diplomacy and a good excuse grants you the same XP for solving.

But not rewarding XP for combat entirely is quite retarded and is one of those cases where your DM is quite a jerk for not informing you beforehand based on your character.
Actually, this is a bloody important thing to tell the entire group you'll DM beforehand with other houserules you'll enforce.

You're in your rights here, DM is at fault.

[killem2]

Honestly, this is just another example of some know-it-all (who doesn't really know jack ****), thinking they can do better than the creators of the game.

Questions to ask this dm.

1. Are you saying I will get zero xp for killing things?
2. Are you saying I have to be the one to get the killing blow?
3. If so, what if my kill gets stolen from a ranged person?
4. Are you just adjusting cr ratings?
5. Why do we need to change anything?



Also open the DMG to page 36 to 41 since he never bothered to read the book. (I've read it cover to cover, it actually has a lot of fantastic info for noob dms, which he is)

[Keneth]

it actually has a lot of fantastic info for noob dms, which he is

That's unfair, seeing as we don't really know much about the situation other than the fact that at some point in the past, the DM decided to give XP for killing blows.

There's an enormous amount of DMs who don't give out XP for combat, or anything at all. Are you arguing that all of us are inexperienced and less talented than the creators who, by the way, understand the game worse than most experienced players?

[Big Fau]

That's unfair, seeing as we don't really know much about the situation other than the fact that at some point in the past, the DM decided to give XP for killing blows.

There's an enormous amount of DMs who don't give out XP for combat, or anything at all. Are you arguing that all of us are inexperienced and less talented than the creators who, by the way, understand the game worse than most experienced players?

There's also a very small subset of DMs that give XP only to the character who scored the killing blow, and that this mindset is indicative of an inexperienced DM.

[drax75]

I'm designed to fight, to obliterate, not get captured by something that deals 1/3 the damage i can dish out. I would have rather been told " this fight is not a fight, or this is not meant to be won" put something on the table, don't just shoot the players and expect them to stand there and let it happen, of course we're going to fight back, i didn't spend hours designing this character so i can be told, " your superior combat abilities are not going to work against these average foes that are inferior in every way, but because i say so, you will lose the combat encounter"


I tell players like you "this game may not be for you".

I may get some flak for this but i would say your DM is trying to play more on the fantasy and RP side of things. Your failing to run away is your own mental problem. If you see insurmountable odd chances are you would run. Your character would likely run as well.

You need to put yourself more in your characters shoes and suspend your disbelief more. Your character likely wants to live more then go down in a blaze of glory.

Think of it this way would you and your party willingly be shot in the head? What i mean is this, if you knew for certain that your only option was suicide would your character kill himself? Staying in a fire fight and being grossly outnumbered is a example of suicide. Sometimes your best bet is to run or surrender. Another example is say your character's came across a Great Wyrm Dragon in the game, do you think your DM intends for you to kill it at say level 5? Or maybe its there as a plot device, you're supposed to trick it, or work for it, or Hell even avoid it. Stop thinking of your character and your game as a video game, its not.

When you play put yourself in the mindset of the character and what he/she wants or needs. Your character likely wants to live to fight again, which means he/she may run or allow him/herself to be captured to escape. Or find another game where you can focus on being a combat only brute.

When i run a game i frequently start the game by telling people "if it looks to hard, it likely is" this remind people that some fights are not intended to be won. To be honest i should not have to tell people this....

just my .02....

[MesiDoomstalker]

I tell players like you "this game may not be for you".

I may get some flak for this but i would say your DM is trying to play more on the fantasy and RP side of things. Your failing to run away is your own mental problem. If you see insurmountable odd chances are you would run. Your character would likely run as well.

You need to put yourself more in your characters shoes and suspend your disbelief more. Your character likely wants to live more then go down in a blaze of glory.

Think of it this way would you and your party willingly be shot in the head? What i mean is this, if you knew for certain that your only option was suicide would your character kill himself? Staying in a fire fight and being grossly outnumbered is a example of suicide. Sometimes your best bet is to run or surrender. Another example is say your character's came across a Great Wyrm Dragon in the game, do you think your DM intends for you to kill it at say level 5? Or maybe its there as a plot device, you're supposed to trick it, or work for it, or Hell even avoid it. Stop thinking of your character and your game as a video game, its not.

When you play put yourself in the mindset of the character and what he/she wants or needs. Your character likely wants to live to fight again, which means he/she may run or allow him/herself to be captured to escape. Or find another game where you can focus on being a combat only brute.

When i run a game i frequently start the game by telling people "if it looks to hard, it likely is" this remind people that some fights are not intended to be won. To be honest i should not have to tell people this....

just my .02....

The situation was not insurmountable, initially. The DM added new enemies to make it insurmountable mid-fight when he realized the encounter wasnt going where he wanted. The OPs complaint was the DM was trying to railroad, failed and then abused his powers to make it work, a legitamite complaint. If the GM wanted them to surrender, an OOC note of the difficulty of the encounter should have sufficed to give the players the hint.

[AdamantlyD20]

Ok, so apparently the DM changed his mind, he will be awarding xp based off of completion of an encounter/ challenge. Yay! ( not saying that other XP awarding variations wouldn't work) but he said it would discourage combat. So he's putting it back in.

[Der_DWSage]

And once again, the day is saved by...the Powerpuff Girls!

So, what shall we do with the thread now that this crisis is over? A few throwpillows, a nice Pun-Pun statue, a few couches...could be the new party spot.

[AdamantlyD20]

I've got a new situation now, he wants to make a damage threshold equal to twice the constitution score. I have 18 Con, and my party member has 12 Con how does this affect balance? If taking more than your damage threshold, you make a fortitude check or fall to 0 HP. My fortitude is +15 to my D20 roll, while his is +7

[AstralFire]

I've got a new situation now, he wants to make a damage threshold equal to twice the constitution score. I have 18 Con, and my party member has 12 Con how does this affect balance? If taking more than your damage threshold, you make a fortitude check or fall to 0 HP. My fortitude is +15 to my D20 roll, while his is +7

Basing massive damage threshold off of Con Score is a really, really, really great way to ensure that anyone who doesn't absolutely pump Con is going to do their best to hide at all possible times and I think it a bad idea.

[Pickford]

You may actually be getting XP behind the scenes.

I ran a short campaign a few years ago where the party was intended to level up at certain points. I built the campaign in such a way that if I gave out XP after each encounter, they would level at the point I wanted them to.

Did you appropriately scale that XP based on penalties?

i.e. If I took a level adjustment race with no favored class and should have a -50% xp penalty or somesuch, would I get the exact same xp/leveling as a regular human single-class character?

[Amphetryon]

The situation was not insurmountable, initially. The DM added new enemies to make it insurmountable mid-fight when he realized the encounter wasnt going where he wanted. The OPs complaint was the DM was trying to railroad, failed and then abused his powers to make it work, a legitamite complaint. If the GM wanted them to surrender, an OOC note of the difficulty of the encounter should have sufficed to give the players the hint.

At the point where the GM gives an OOC note of that nature, we'd have a thread about railroading instead of about the GM's apparently unusual XP system, if general forum tendencies are any indicator. I, for one, am not convinced that's better.


I've got a new situation now, he wants to make a damage threshold equal to twice the constitution score. I have 18 Con, and my party member has 12 Con how does this affect balance? If taking more than your damage threshold, you make a fortitude check or fall to 0 HP. My fortitude is +15 to my D20 roll, while his is +7
The DM is trying to fix the Massive Damage rules, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, given how arbitrary the 50 HP threshold is, relative to some monsters' HP totals. I'd say the proposed fix isn't ideal, however. Basing the damage threshold on a certain percentage of HP (such as 50% of healthy max) lost in a single hit may be more equitable.

[AdamantlyD20]

He wants to make combat more lethal

[Big Fau]

I've got a new situation now, he wants to make a damage threshold equal to twice the constitution score. I have 18 Con, and my party member has 12 Con how does this affect balance? If taking more than your damage threshold, you make a fortitude check or fall to 0 HP. My fortitude is +15 to my D20 roll, while his is +7

This is going to get really bad, as certain enemies can do damage like that at all levels. Conversely it's fairly trivial to do this to enemies, turning the game's innate Rocket Tag up to 11 and breaking the dial off just to be sure.

[Kesnit]

i.e. If I took a level adjustment race with no favored class and should have a -50% xp penalty or somesuch, would I get the exact same xp/leveling as a regular human single-class character?

I don't play with XP penalties for multi-classing. The LA race would have been part of you ECL, which was used to calculate XP.

But that's a moot point, since both PCs were human

[OldTrees1]

I've got a new situation now, he wants to make a damage threshold equal to twice the constitution score. I have 18 Con, and my party member has 12 Con how does this affect balance? If taking more than your damage threshold, you make a fortitude check or fall to 0 HP. My fortitude is +15 to my D20 roll, while his is +7

Hmm. Here is how I would approach it:

"... Hey I was thinking about this new damage threshold rule. Recently we have been having issues where my character has been too hardy compared to ___'s character. Now I like it when you experiment with houserules, but this particular one might exacerbate the other issue. [Show numbers] Do you mind if we all brainstorm on how to have our cake and eat it too? (reduce the Hardiness difference while also playing with some form of the new house rule) ..."

[MonochromeTiger]

He wants to make combat more lethal

there are ways to do that without repeatedly tearing apart everyone but the most heavily armored party members and rigging fights.. like having the "dead at 0 hp" rule, or simply tuning up the enemies a bit. are you sure your DM understand the difference between "making combat lethal" and "killing your players' will to play"?

[MesiDoomstalker]

At the point where the GM gives an OOC note of that nature, we'd have a thread about railroading instead of about the GM's apparently unusual XP system, if general forum tendencies are any indicator. I, for one, am not convinced that's better.

I understand the dislike for Railroading. However, I think blatant misuse of DM powers to retcon a Railroad is a worse offense than planning accordingly, hinting of the desired outcome to the players, and then letting the dice fall (which if planned well, will fall towards the DM's set outcome). Railroading is not inherently bad. Setting up an encounter to be basically unwinnable (at least by standard definitions of win) and informing your players as such (to prevent headstrong suicide tactics) is not Railroading. It is setting up the tracks. The players still have the open to go out in a blaze of glory, or simply not fight (unless you planned a way to force them at which point it be Railroading).

[MonochromeTiger]

I understand the dislike for Railroading. However, I think blatant misuse of DM powers to retcon a Railroad is a worse offense than planning accordingly, hinting of the desired outcome to the players, and then letting the dice fall (which if planned well, will fall towards the DM's set outcome). Railroading is not inherently bad. Setting up an encounter to be basically unwinnable (at least by standard definitions of win) and informing your players as such (to prevent headstrong suicide tactics) is not Railroading. It is setting up the tracks. The players still have the open to go out in a blaze of glory, or simply not fight (unless you planned a way to force them at which point it be Railroading).

setting up an unwinnable encounter is difficult to do at times and quite a few DMs I've seen have tried only to wind up with a purposefully blank face when we get out of it with a win.. the issue is when an attempt for an encounter to be unwinnable starts to go wrong and the DM immediately stacks things against the players even more just to get their way.

railroading in an RPG is indeed bad in my book as it discounts the players' ability to affect the narrative at all, they have guards after them because they did something a local lord disagrees with? they should be able to choose where they go from there even up to taking out that local lord, it can be hard but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the chance because the DM thinks they should get captured and shipped to a different area instead.

[Amphetryon]

I understand the dislike for Railroading. However, I think blatant misuse of DM powers to retcon a Railroad is a worse offense than planning accordingly, hinting of the desired outcome to the players, and then letting the dice fall (which if planned well, will fall towards the DM's set outcome). Railroading is not inherently bad. Setting up an encounter to be basically unwinnable (at least by standard definitions of win) and informing your players as such (to prevent headstrong suicide tactics) is not Railroading. It is setting up the tracks. The players still have the open to go out in a blaze of glory, or simply not fight (unless you planned a way to force them at which point it be Railroading).

I know many Players who would disagree with the highlighted sentence, some vehemently. These Players, almost without variance, have indicated that if the outcome of an encounter must go a certain way, there's no point in playing that encounter, and enough of these strung together indicate that the DM is writing a novel rather than running an adventure.

[Emmerask]

Well personally i completely agree with your dm; xp for fights that in most cases are just there to waste xy amount of resources always seemed odd to me.

Giving xp for killing also increases the murder hobo tendencies of parties... something d&d especially has an issue with to begin with (in general even cr fights are just not dangerous at all in d&d) so I see no need to further it ^^

And then of course there is the whole extreme increase in power that comes with a level up, which at an inopportune time pretty much could ruin an adventure.

Now in a point buy system I see no reason not to hand out xp after a fight, the difference in power in most cases is manageable, but d&d? never ever.

[Abaddona]

If you fear that level up in wrong time and place can destroy your adventure (first thing which comes to mind are of course caster and obtaining new spells) simply rule that to level up you need to train for few days in town or other safe area (in other words level ups are something which happens between adventures or if your player take their time to level up enemies also would further their own goals/become stronger).

Also in DnD there is simply not something like "giving XP for killing" - there is "giving XP for overcoming obstacles". If PC meet bandits taking tool on the bridge, they can murder them, persuade them to let them pass, pay them, hire mercenaries to deal with them, inform local lord about situation and persuade him to dispatch troops, swim through the river, find another bridge or even build new bridge - each one of this things will make you gain XP for this encounter, some of them will get you additional rewards or penalties and of course additional possible sidequests (if PC want to do them) - for example blowing bridge up will solve the bandits problem but now someone must repair it.

[Emmerask]

true you could avoid the fight.. however killing stuff in d&d is so easy that there really is no need (if the cr is somewhat appropriate ie +-2).

The biggest issue I have though (forgive me, its been some time since my last 3.5 game so it took some time to remember) is that leveling up using xp for encounters is way way way too fast and you go through the most fun levels (which are around level 7 to 12 imo [builds that have taken some shape but are not yet in the super hero of doom territory]) in a heartbeat and land in the "moon sized creatures attack the sun do something against it" territory.

In general i prefer the "you level up when the dm tells you its time" approach :smallwink:

[MonochromeTiger]

true you could avoid the fight.. however killing stuff in d&d is so easy that there really is no need (if the cr is somewhat appropriate ie +-2).

The biggest issue I have though (forgive me, its been some time since my last 3.5 game so it took some time to remember) is that leveling up using xp for encounters is way way way too fast and you go through the most fun levels (which are around level 7 to 12 imo [builds that have taken some shape but are not yet in the super hero of doom territory]) in a heartbeat and land in the "moon sized creatures attack the sun do something against it" territory.

In general i prefer the "you level up when the dm tells you its time" approach :smallwink:

I'm sure there are places for that but the question there would be, is that fun for the DM, the players, or both? if it's both then you've done a great job. if it's just the DM the players are suffering through something because the DM doesn't want to move on which is generally seen as bad DMing. if it's just the players then it's fairly likely they've done something the DM was either not expecting or not wanting them to do (which can ALSO be considered bad DMing by some). what's fun for some isn't always fun for others and one of the DM's main jobs in a game is to create a game in which the players are having fun.

if a game is too difficult or one sided because the DM feels they personally want it to be that way that doesn't mean the players are enjoying getting hit harder or not getting a say in some things. if a game is slow because the DM wants them to go through a specific process even when they have the answer to a problem already the players feel railroaded. I'm not saying the DM shouldn't be allowed to enjoy their game if they disagree with the players on some points but consider the fact that without players there's nothing for the DM to do, if you anger them or bore them until they leave there's no one to tell a story, no one to set up encounters for..the DM loses if their players lose interest.

[Scow2]

I'm more on the side of the DM here. Removing XP for combat is a way to reinforce that "The game's not about fighting, it's about playing the character you want." Default XP-for-Encounter rewards encourage optimization because optimized characters are capable of taking on harder challenges and defeating them faster, meaning a higher XP-per-minute rate.

Having the advancement system not reward seeking out violence over other options allows you to play a character truer-to-concept: a bookish investigator doesn't need to get into four gunfights a day to not fall off of some power curve when it would make more sense for him to hang out in a bar (That DOESN'T devolve into a barfight just to provide a source of XP). If you make a combat monster and intend to pick fights, it's because kicking ass and taking names is fun in its own right, not because you're chasing Moar Expees.


there are ways to do that without repeatedly tearing apart everyone but the most heavily armored party members and rigging fights.. like having the "dead at 0 hp" rule, or simply tuning up the enemies a bit. are you sure your DM understand the difference between "making combat lethal" and "killing your players' will to play"?
Actually, the "HP based on CON" is the default in d20 Modern. It changes the way the game runs so that you fear guns and other high-damage attacks, while still having the ability to shrug off and survive multiple 'lesser' attacks. A weapon that deals 3d6 points of damage or more is scary at any level, and mitigates the survivability that comes from HP bloat - Though, honestly, I'd suggest having a failed FORT save should inflict a "Dying" condition stolen from another system (Such as 4e or D&D Next) and leaves the HP value intact, not kill immediately - There's a chance of a character dying from one shot, but they still have a few rounds to be saved.

[The Grue]

He wants to make combat more lethal

If he wants to make combat more lethal, have weapons deal Con damage on a confirmed crit instead of a damage multiplier.

[Zweisteine]

I didn't read most of the thread, so my ideas may have come up before or be irrelevant now.

If a character is overpowered, especially in combat, the solution is not to not give them experience for using their abilities. The solution should be to make the encounters harder, probably by using higher-level opponents.

[Thanatosia]

Typically, I hand out xp based on the actual difficulty of challenges, role playing, and a few tiny nuggets if someone gets a joke or pun that I put into the game. I don't like the CR system. You can build a level appropriate encounter according to the CR, and it almost kills the PCs. Even if they used good tactics. Alternatively, you create an encounter designed around the PCs losing and getting captured, and they breeze through it. I tend to give out more XP for actual challenges than I do for walks in the park.
I pretty much hate this, it punishes the party for being well prepared or creative. oh, you were ready and had the tools to handle the encounter easily? Well, less xp for you! You came up with a creative strategy that made the ecounter easier then intended - Let me just adjust that xp reward down since it didn't actually chalenge you.

Different strokes for different folks, but I much prefer a CR system that rewards xp off 'intended difficulty' that then just bonus rewards people for out of the box thinking that reduces the intended difficulty, rather then punishing them for making what was supposed to be hard encounters easier.

Any time an encounter plays out easier then it was intended, there's pretty much never a good reason to reduce the xp for it. PCs just got lucky and rolled perfect? No reason to punish them for it. You messed up and misjudged the challenge? Your fault, dont punish the PCs and better assess your encounter next time. PCs came up with unexpected tactics or had means at hand to trivialize encounter? Again, don't punish them for it.

On the other end of the spectrum, if an encounter nearly kills the PCs that wasn't supposed to be a challenge, I'd sit back and determine why. If it was a mistake on my part as a DM like misjudging the Monsters abilities, I'd reward bonus xp - mia culpa. If it was just astounding bad luck - well, as the above good luck example, luck happens, it doesn't mean you get more xp for it. And if the PCs just played stupid and reckless and you can clearly see where they were doing so, try to hint at them to be more careful but don't reward them for it.

[Tevesh]

My bias is discarding the XP system entirely. There is a plot, approximately 13 fights with roughly one mini-boss and a boss, and then you level.

That said, based off of comments made in this thread, I don't think you guys have had "the talk". The talk is one of the most important aspects of beginning a game. That is setting expectations and following through with them. It sounds like you guys are young, you haven't had that much experience playing RPGs and no matter who took up the DM mantle was going to horribly disappoint.

For example, in my current game, I said that I wanted good characters but they weren't going to be heroic. The PCs are nice, but need not rescue every lost puppy. I wanted the PCs to build casual-level where they don't mind if I play fast and loose with the rules for the story.

In another game, I said I wanted to run a 'gloves off' game where I would stick to RAW/RAI as close as possible but I was designing each dungeon to kill the PCs. I wanted the PCs to build Optimized Gestalt characters that had a Rogue-like level on one side (i.e. Monk, Rogue, Swordsage, Bard - guys with Tumble, Hide and Move Silently).

In another game, I said I wanted to run a hack-n-slash dungeon crawl where I didn't care about RP or even Alignment, this was going to be a kick down the door game. I wanted players to play within the rules but not be abusive.

Based off of the disparity between party members and encounters, this chat wasn't had. As for accusing the DM for 'adding more guys' - how do you know? He tell you this or are you speculating? Due to this disparity, even if he made it harder for the better players, the worse ones will be left behind through repeated deaths. This isn't fun for everyone.

Finally, being a DM is hard. It sounds like this guy doesn't know what he's doing but he's the one willing to sit in the hot seat. Until you've got a few games under your belt, its not going to be smooth sailing. It sounds like he thought it would be fun, made a story and enemies and found that his players skill at optimizing far outstripped his own.

Remember, the point of the game is for everyone to win. The DM thinks of challenges you guys enjoy, you guys enjoy overcoming them. If this isn't happening, perhaps you should have the talk.

[Scow2]

I didn't read most of the thread, so my ideas may have come up before or be irrelevant now.

If a character is overpowered, especially in combat, the solution is not to not give them experience for using their abilities. The solution should be to make the encounters harder, probably by using higher-level opponents.
Bigger/harder encounters mean more XP, push the character to optimize more for combat, and turn the game into "The Overpowered Character Show". Removing XP-for-combat sends a message that if you're going to fight, fight for a cause other than gaining XP. Experience is the measure of how much someone is "Winning" the game, so XP for combat is saying that "Winning Fights is Winning the Game" - and gamers tend to play to win, so they steer their character into an even more combat-heavy role the more you reward Combat with "Victory". Sure, there are other ways to overcome challenges, but Killing The Opposition is usually the most straightforward and permanent way to overcome a challenge (And if their killing pisses off others, that just means more challenges to overcome and more XP to be earned!).

It creates a pro-combat positive-feedback loop.

[Trasilor]

Do you folks ever actually talk to each other before sitting down at the table?

Before I run a game, I always talk to the players as to the type of game we want to play. Then I design the game accordingly.

For me, it is very important that players know specifically why they are receiving XP: monsters defeated, role-playing events, creativity, remaining in character, not disrupting the game, etc. I usually only reward, rarely do I punish (remove XP). If we want to play a more RP oriented game, more XP is given for RP opportunities. Remember, rewards = recognition. People like to be recognized. :smallamused:

Finally, I find not giving out XP is bad. XP is a not only a reward, it is is a commodity for some characters. From item creation, to spell component costs, it is designed to be a resource.

[Brookshw]

I do take some minor issue in a blanket statement regarding awarding xp for defeating encounters by bypassing them. In most cases, player creativity and ingenuity I feel should be rewarded, my players surprisingly me is one of my favorite parts of the game (despite the many headaches it has caused).

But I do consider that there should be some exceptions. A group that has permanent flight, or long enough duration flight that the difference is negligible, flying over enemies that have neither ranged or flight ability hardly seems worthy of awarding xp, heck, I have a hard time even defining it as an encounter. Without some degree of potential failure it seems odd to award xp.

As to the op, I still think your dm has some odd ways of running a game, especially concerning xp. Agreeing with others, a conversation would probably benefit all.

[pyrese]

He wants to make combat more lethal

Make combat more lethal? Has your DM ever actually played as a PC in 3.5? Even against characters that are optimized to take hits, I'll on occasion accidentally one shot a pc if a power attack rolls up extra rough (Minotaur, I'm looking at you!).

Honestly, I'd be running screaming from this DM. Everything you've said reeks of rail-roading. If the DM wants players to view combat as a last resort, then the campaign should be styled for that: More logic puzzles, intrigue, lots of Role play opportunities(See Shackled City). But even then, XP should still be awarded for combat. Combat is a challenge that your characters over come and a large portion of the rule set is focused on defining how combat functions.