What actions are worth experience points?

[Nibbens]

I planned for a CR17 encounter among a group of Lvl 15 characters. It would have been rough for them if they chose to go through the battle, but do-able. However, the PC's used several means at their disposal to completely avoid the situation and get past it.

My question is should I feed them the EXP for the "completed" encounter and why? They "accomplished" the task by analyzing the situation, deciding to avoid it, then actually succeeding in getting past it, but they didn't attack or kill the monster.

Personally, I'm torn between giving/not giving exp, but I'm just wondering what everyone else thought.

By the way, we play Pathfinder - if that helps.

[Xerlith]

You get Exp for overcoming an encounter, not destroying it with swords. I say they deserve the XP.

[SinsI]

What Xeriath said. That's why Diplomacy is a skill on par with Tier 1 magic.

[Nibbens]

True, this does make sense. However, I still feel that flying above an enemy that cannot fly is cheap. lol. The enemy peppered their hides as they escaped, but it wanted blood. haha.
Anyway, thanks.

[Bakkan]

PCs should get XP for accomplishing goals. Sometimes this goal is "survive the bandit ambush" and sometimes it's "get into the treasure room that's being guarded by a cyclops". If the PCs teleport away from the ambush or convince the cyclops that they're the treasure room inspectors, they should get full experience in my estimation.

[awa]

see I kinda disagree pcs should get xp based on the challenge of the threat if the party flies past an army they did not overcome the army and should get a lot less xp then a party that defeated the army.

If all the party did was delay the fight till latter then they have yet to overcome the monster. I would give them a small amount of xp but until the threat is neutralized in some manner which does not necessarily mean combat they should not get full xp

[Psyren]

see I kinda disagree pcs should get xp based on the challenge of the threat if the party flies past an army they did not overcome the army and should get a lot less xp then a party that defeated the army.

If all the party did was delay the fight till latter then they have yet to overcome the monster. I would give them a small amount of xp but until the threat is neutralized in some manner which does not necessarily mean combat they should not get full xp

I tend to agree here, otherwise you are doubling their exp if they fight the same army again and this time take it out.

Similarly I don't think a party who runs away from an ambush would necessarily get the same XP as one that stands their ground and defeats it, or even that uses persuasion to make the enemy stand down.

[sakuuya]

see I kinda disagree pcs should get xp based on the challenge of the threat if the party flies past an army they did not overcome the army and should get a lot less xp then a party that defeated the army.

If all the party did was delay the fight till latter then they have yet to overcome the monster. I would give them a small amount of xp but until the threat is neutralized in some manner which does not necessarily mean combat they should not get full xp

I think it depends what the party's goal is. If the goal is, say, "Get past the army" (let's say they're trying to rescue someone trapped behind enemy lines), then they've fulfilled their objective and should get full XP from the army "encounter," even though they didn't engage the army at all. If the goal is, instead, "Stop the army" (let's say they're trying to protect a village in the army's path), then flying over the army does not accomplish their goal--it may give them an advantage later because they can attack from behind, but it doesn't itself fulfill their objective, and so doesn't earn XP. It sounds like, in the OP's party's case, that killing the monster was not necessary to whatever the party was trying to do.

My advice, Nibbens, would be to give them full XP for completing the encounter (assuming, again, that they fulfilled their objective), because penalizing smart play is usually not a good idea, and keep their tactics in mind when designing future encounters so that they can't trivialize every encounter by flying over it. If you throw a flying monster at 'em and they come up with some other clever way to bypass it, that's fine. Just keep them on their toes.

Out of curiosity, what was this CR 17 monster that can be totally shut down by flying characters? Flight seems like something PCs should be assumed to have by 15th level, so high-level monsters should be able to deal with it. Then again, that's me assuming that the 3/3.5/PF designers thought through the implications of all their design decisions, which, pfft. No.

[Nibbens]

Again, a valid point, and thus my problem. The PC's will not be encountering it again, (if they do, it will be many months down the line). I considered 1/2 the exp, because it did make them burn through appx 20 charges of a wand of Cure Light Wounds (as I mentioned, it 'peppered' them as they flew overhead), and had to burn through a few spells to do it. But say you have lvl 3 characters fighting and kill a band of monsters and something MUCH bigger pops up after the fight is over, munching on the dead bodies of what they killed. They get away from it - should they get the exp for that bigger monster too? They survived/escaped (which would have been the objective for the encounter of the stronger monster) but is it really worth the exp that way? It's that I have a problem with...

[Nibbens]

Out of curiosity, what was this CR 17 monster that can be totally shut down by flying characters? Flight seems like something PCs should be assumed to have by 15th level, so high-level monsters should be able to deal with it. Then again, that's me assuming that the 3/3.5/PF designers thought through the implications of all their design decisions, which, pfft. No.

A Bandersnatch (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/bandersnatch.html). I knew about their flying potential, and had counted on a "we're being stalked" kind of situation and it would be "playing with it's food" by darting in and out of combat, etc etc. confusing/quilling them as they escaped. But when the party, dang near reaches the stars just to avoid it, meh... kind of killed my fun. lol.

I think it's a point to make that the PC's feel they accomplished a goal by avoiding the thing dang near entirely, which is why I am torn about the EXP. To them, they didn't "flee" as much as they "avoided" it.

[Gildedragon]

Full XP not half, don't cheat your players out of their rewards.

Since you designed it as a single encounter in two waves: yes... maybe.
Consider encounters as whole XP bundles: if they overcome them then they get the XP.

When you make an encounter you have to have the goal of the encounter v. clear in mind, as well as the boundaries of the encounter (an encounter can be built up of smaller encounters, as you were doing). This lets you know if the challenge was overcome and what encounter(s) they overcame. Since the second encounter followed directly and inevitably from the first and they avoided it: XP flows, but you consider the XP of both creatures separately

You should, next time, take into account the players' movement capacities when designing these things' CR: if they can go around something and there is no reason to fight, then there is no reason not to go around something. Give the players a reason to fight and don't forget to make the beasties also have a reason to be an encounter.

[Psyren]

Well just because they avoided it doesn't mean you can't reward them for their "cleverness," but come up with some fun consequences later. Maybe that frustrated/hungry bandersnatch, denied its adventurer meal, attacks a village instead - and one of the survivors tracks the PCs down later with a nice The Reason You Suck/What The Hell Hero tirade. Or they simply hear about the devastation the next town over and that's the reason all the shops are understocked. Or maybe another NPC (soon to be a villain) comes along, kills it, obtains whatever treasure would have gone to the PCs and uses it against them later.

Remember also that in PF, you don't have to give XP at all. It's not actually used for anything, so you can just as easily say "you level up" at various story points and not worry too much about the specific methods they use to solve your encounters. Nothing wrong with XP of course but some DMs forget this is an option.


I think it depends what the party's goal is. If the goal is, say, "Get past the army" (let's say they're trying to rescue someone trapped behind enemy lines), then they've fulfilled their objective and should get full XP from the army "encounter," even though they didn't engage the army at all. If the goal is, instead, "Stop the army" (let's say they're trying to protect a village in the army's path), then flying over the army does not accomplish their goal--it may give them an advantage later because they can attack from behind, but it doesn't itself fulfill their objective, and so doesn't earn XP. It sounds like, in the OP's party's case, that killing the monster was not necessary to whatever the party was trying to do.

Good point, I agree.

[sakuuya]

Full XP not half, don't cheat your players out of their rewards.

Since you designed it as a single encounter in two waves: yes... maybe.
Consider encounters as whole XP bundles: if they overcome them then they get the XP.

When you make an encounter you have to have the goal of the encounter v. clear in mind, as well as the boundaries of the encounter (an encounter can be built up of smaller encounters, as you were doing). This lets you know if the challenge was overcome and what encounter(s) they overcame. Since the second encounter followed directly and inevitably from the first and they avoided it: XP flows, but you consider the XP of both creatures separately

You should, next time, take into account the players' movement capacities when designing these things' CR: if they can go around something and there is no reason to fight, then there is no reason not to go around something. Give the players a reason to fight and don't forget to make the beasties also have a reason to be an encounter.

This is good encounter-design advice. If you don't want PCs avoiding fights, then give them goals that can't be met by avoiding fights. Similarly, if a challenge can't be overcome by fightin' (like your hypothetical above with the big corpse-muncher), you don't have to give it the same XP reward as a battle, even if there's a monster involved. In cases where "survive/escape" is gonna be the PCs' primary goal, weigh how difficult escaping will be vs. how hard it would be to fight the monster and assign potential XP accordingly. For a low-level party, fleeing from a preoccupied monster in a forest might not be too difficult, and so shouldn't get much XP. In a case where fleeing would be very difficult (say they fell into an oubliette with a black pudding in it, or something), it deserves XP similar to defeating the monster.


Well just because they avoided it doesn't mean you can't reward them for their "cleverness," but come up with some fun consequences later. Maybe that frustrated/hungry bandersnatch, denied its adventurer meal, attacks a village instead - and one of the survivors tracks the PCs down later with a nice The Reason You Suck/What The Hell Hero tirade. Or they simply hear about the devastation the next town over and that's the reason all the shops are understocked. Or maybe another NPC (soon to be a villain) comes along, kills it, obtains whatever treasure would have gone to the PCs and uses it against them later.

Also this. These are some excellent ways to make PCs want to fight monsters rather than avoid 'em. Mwahaha.

[NichG]

My advice would be to associate XP with entire logically connected game arcs rather than specific enemies, encounters, or events. For example, if the player declares that they have a certain in-character goal, then associate an XP total with that goal and parcel it out in pieces over the course of them pursuing that goal. If they go back and 'fight the army again' just to farm xp then it has nothing to do with them achieving a larger goal, so they get 0xp for it. If they contrive events to go in such a way that they never meet the army at all, they still get the same total amount of xp by the time they've accomplished their goal.

That way you can separate the in-character motivations from out-of-character motivations and metagame reasoning of 'I want more XP', which helps avoid the 'we'd better bull through or we might miss XP' or 'we'd better not teleport there because then we miss out on the XP on the way'. I find that thinking of XP as an explicitly metagame construct to determine pacing rather than as a specific reward for things being difficult or challenging makes a lot of things clearer as far as how to make use of it.

[Bakkan]

But say you have lvl 3 characters fighting and kill a band of monsters and something MUCH bigger pops up after the fight is over, munching on the dead bodies of what they killed. They get away from it - should they get the exp for that bigger monster too? They survived/escaped (which would have been the objective for the encounter of the stronger monster) but is it really worth the exp that way? It's that I have a problem with...

In this case they would get XP for achieving the goal of "get away from the giant man-eating monstrosity", however the CR of this challenge is not the same as the CR of the monster. The CR in the Monster Manual is the CR for the goal of "kill this thing in fair combat in an environment not favoring one side or the other". If the beastie was even CR 20 by the book, then surviving it, given that it has fresh corpses to munch on that it prefers to the PCs, is a CR 1 or 2 challenge at best and should reward the players accordingly.

[Captnq]

"Why did you kill the kobold children?"
"They're not worth experience points ALIVE!"

What sort of message will you be sending your players if they get XPs for solving problems in a fashion that don't end in a heap of broken mangled bodies? They should get nothing.

[Trasilor]

Not sure if other posters already mentioned...

As a DM I reward XP based on two criteria:

Were they working towards/accomplishing a goal?
Were their any risks?

These are basic threshold for awarding XP. Once that is met - then I adjust the XP based on lots of factors:
Creativity, consistent play-style, intelligent actions in combat, etc. I rarely penalize for stupid mistakes as their is an inherent penalty already (usually death).


In your example - the PC's flew over the enemy hoard. Did the PCs know the enemy had no flyers? Did they know they know that flying was completely secure?

If so, then I would award them the same amount of XP for flying over the enemy as I would if they teleported past them (i.e. extremely little). The certainly did not defeat the enemy.

However, I would award them XP for discovering this weakness of the enemy.

Of course, leaving your enemy on the battlefield may have repercussions all on its own. :smallamused:

[Xintas]

I tend to break XP rewards into a few categories. One is for actually accomplishing the goal. The second piece is the XP value of the creatures they fought. The third is the difficulty of their particular method.

In this way, I can get a reasonable facsimile that I feel ok with. You get full xp for getting by it, 75% for using an easier but more creative method, and no xp for not defeating the monster. Something along those lines.

[Gildedragon]

Not sure if other posters already mentioned...

As a DM I reward XP based on two criteria:

Were they working towards/accomplishing a goal?
Were their any risks?

These are basic threshold for awarding XP. Once that is met - then I adjust the XP based on lots of factors:
Creativity, consistent play-style, intelligent actions in combat, etc. I rarely penalize for stupid mistakes as their is an inherent penalty already (usually death).


In your example - the PC's flew over the enemy hoard. Did the PCs know the enemy had no flyers? Did they know they know that flying was completely secure?

If so, then I would award them the same amount of XP for flying over the enemy as I would if they teleported past them (i.e. extremely little). The certainly did not defeat the enemy.

However, I would award them XP for discovering this weakness of the enemy.

Of course, leaving your enemy on the battlefield may have repercussions all on its own. :smallamused:

Except the DM is the one that sets up the risks. If the PCs bypass them they still ought get the full XP. To do otherwise is to say: no XP unless you do things my way. Needless to say that isn't a healthy attitude.
Would you likewise drop the PCs XP gain if they opened a gate under the monster, making it fall to its death (or another realm) without risk to the party?

[Nibbens]

Well just because they avoided it doesn't mean you can't reward them for their "cleverness," but come up with some fun consequences later. Maybe that frustrated/hungry bandersnatch, denied its adventurer meal, attacks a village instead - and one of the survivors tracks the PCs down later with a nice The Reason You Suck/What The Hell Hero tirade. Or they simply hear about the devastation the next town over and that's the reason all the shops are understocked. Or maybe another NPC (soon to be a villain) comes along, kills it, obtains whatever treasure would have gone to the PCs and uses it against them later.


I actually went ahead and conferred with my PC's. They seem to feel that receiving full EXP for the situation would be a no go. They opted for 1/4 the exp (or less) for completing the objective (getting past it) but not putting the thing down. So I think playing to my players desires seem to be the best course of action here - besides, they feel that their actions should be rewarded - if not in full, at least a little. So, I don't see the harm in keeping them happy.

I think I will give them some exp, and hit them with the same Bandersnatch later on (besides, the thing could still be tracking them). Considering how they reacted when I described "A gargantuan panther-looking creature with six paws and covered in coarse spines cold burning eyes" (The word 'gargantuan' got them to start counting squares on the mat for comparative purposes - everything else after that was just fluff. lol.), I think I will reward them with some EXP for their effective evasion of him, then have him track them down to their home city later. Threaten the entire city with him and make him a 'need to kill' threat. Then, when they do, reward them with full EXP for the encounter.

That should make people around my table happy at least (and the DM too)! However, I still find the situation a fascinating one and quite the dilemma. haha.

[Nibbens]

In your example - the PC's flew over the enemy hoard. Did the PCs know the enemy had no flyers? Did they know they know that flying was completely secure?

If so, then I would award them the same amount of XP for flying over the enemy as I would if they teleported past them (i.e. extremely little). The certainly did not defeat the enemy.

However, I would award them XP for discovering this weakness of the enemy.

Of course, leaving your enemy on the battlefield may have repercussions all on its own.

They did not know that flying was secure - as they had no idea what it was. (I didn't come out and say 'Bandersnatch') And I am definitely down with the ripple effects of their decisions. There will be consequences. :)

[awa]

except its not just the dm who sets up the risk does a party as well. If the party starts a fight realizes the monster is to strong then runs away should they get as much xp as a party who beat it head on.

Another way to look at it is if you get full xp for running away you actually penalize players for killing monster it's much more effective to run up annoy a monster then run away multiple times then it is to actually deal with the threat.

That's why i advocate partial xp or more accurately an xp cap you by pass some weak time waster enemies get full xp you run from a boss.

here an actual example from a game i once played an avatar attacked a fellow party member my character attacked its flat footed, touch ac and missed on a roll 19 then decided this was out of his league and ran away leaving the unlucky sap to there fate. I did not and should not have received xp for killing the beast.

[Gildedragon]

There is a difference between running away and avoiding.
Here they knew their goal: get past the 'snatcher and so they did.
Running away is failing to do progress (though running away opens a new encounter: getting away)

In your example: escaping with the attacked partymate would be worthy of XP

Also allowing for alternatives does not penalize the monster killers. They kill the thing because they want or because they need to. In the former there is no penalty because someone flees, you ain't docking the killer any XP (whereas you are punishing those that would rather not kill for fun) and in the latter the challenge is killing the thing.

Do not penalize the players for playing smart and sensible or for not following through with a lack of motivation (or do not complain if they meta game and kill everything in sight)

[shadow_archmagi]

Unless you said to your players at the start "Okay, this is a game about fighting monsters, so I want everyone to roll characters who can fight monsters, and write backstories about how much you love risking your lives in pointless fights" then you probably shouldn't penalize them for their actions here.

[Nibbens]

There is a difference between running away and avoiding.
Here they knew their goal: get past the 'snatcher and so they did.
Running away is failing to do progress (though running away opens a new encounter: getting away)

Do not penalize the players for playing smart and sensible or for not following through with a lack of motivation (or do not complain if they meta game and kill everything in sight)

I do have to agree here, they did "accomplish their goal," by getting past it. However, if the methods were cheap, nearly akin to "running away." Onlookers viewing the scene (and the party Sorcerer who was confused for 17 rounds by meeting its gaze) would say they ran, but the party Paladin would say it was a avoiding killing a living animal who was hunting. Which is why I question the distribution of EXP.

How would you handle the exp of a situation that's not quite avoiding and not quite fleeing, but sort of a mixture of both?

[Gildedragon]

I do have to agree here, they did "accomplish their goal," by getting past it. However, if the methods were cheap, nearly akin to "running away." Onlookers viewing the scene (and the party Sorcerer who was confused for 17 rounds by meeting its gaze) would say they ran, but the party Paladin would say it was a avoiding killing a living animal who was hunting. Which is why I question the distribution of EXP.

How would you handle the exp of a situation that's not quite avoiding and not quite fleeing, but sort of a mixture of both?

You gotta ask what was the encounter's goal (read the player's motivation/goal in the encounter)
It wasn't to kill the creature: the creature was an obstacle to their goal (get from A to B safely). As such the players had no motive to fight it (fighting it would even have been counterproductive to their goal).
As such they get full XP for the encounter (as they accomplished their goals). To give "bonus" XP for killing (or dock XP for not killing) is counterproductive to the game (you get then situations where they manage to get thing X without a tussle, but then murder everyone for XP; XP is awarded per encounter/challenge not per combat/kill)

As a DM you had an idea of your player's motivations (kill everything) that wasn't accurate. They surprised you, and avoided a motivationless fight.

Think of an analogous scenario: they are in an LG settlement, the captain of the city watch doesn't like elves, the party wizard is an elf, so the captain tries to pick a fight after he's a bit in his cups after a long day. The game style of kill for XP has the PCs draw weapons in the tavern and kill the guardsman. You would probably punish the PCs for that, or at least disapprove. If the cleric casts neutralize poison, or bull's endurance + resurgence on the guard (neutralizing alcohol's effects) and sobering the man up, you would probably reward them.
Heck if they picked the fight out of the blue (dwarves cleric doesn't like humans in armor) you wouldn't (oughtn't in any case) give them XP.

To fly over the flightless thing is to neutralize the alcohol in the guard, or to talk him down via diplomacy.

If there is no reason to fight there is no reason to fight.
To dock PCs XP for that is to act out of spite that they saw through a less-than-solid encounter.

[SinsI]

Encounters give two types of rewards - XP and Treasure. By avoiding your monster, they are already denied the Treasure part, so that's what they pay for not killing it. It is perfectly fine to give them the full XP reward.

[Nibbens]

You gotta ask what was the encounter's goal (read the player's motivation/goal in the encounter)
It wasn't to kill the creature: the creature was an obstacle to their goal (get from A to B safely). As such the players had no motive to fight it (fighting it would even have been counterproductive to their goal).
As such they get full XP for the encounter (as they accomplished their goals). To give "bonus" XP for killing (or dock XP for not killing) is counterproductive to the game (you get then situations where they manage to get thing X without a tussle, but then murder everyone for XP; XP is awarded per encounter/challenge not per combat/kill)

As a DM you had an idea of your player's motivations (kill everything) that wasn't accurate. They surprised you, and avoided a motivationless fight.

Think of an analogous scenario: they are in an LG settlement, the captain of the city watch doesn't like elves, the party wizard is an elf, so the captain tries to pick a fight after he's a bit in his cups after a long day. The game style of kill for XP has the PCs draw weapons in the tavern and kill the guardsman. You would probably punish the PCs for that, or at least disapprove. If the cleric casts neutralize poison, or bull's endurance + resurgence on the guard (neutralizing alcohol's effects) and sobering the man up, you would probably reward them.
Heck if they picked the fight out of the blue (dwarves cleric doesn't like humans in armor) you wouldn't (oughtn't in any case) give them XP.

To fly over the flightless thing is to neutralize the alcohol in the guard, or to talk him down via diplomacy.

If there is no reason to fight there is no reason to fight.
To dock PCs XP for that is to act out of spite that they saw through a less-than-solid encounter.

So you would give full exp for an encounter to a group of players who flee from it (but flee towards their intended goal)?

[Gildedragon]

So you would give full exp for an encounter to a group of players who flee from it (but flee towards their intended goal)?

If they are successful in avoiding the encounter, or in escaping the monster trap, yes. They are moving along with the story, learning tactics, and being effective.

I personally try not to have "you run into a monster" bits. I have the encounter start before that, when they can find tracks and traces of the monster, prepare against it (be it to battle it or avoid it or draw it out and plunder its lair).

[Nibbens]

I personally try not to have "you run into a monster" bits. I have the encounter start before that, when they can find tracks and traces of the monster, prepare against it (be it to battle it or avoid it or draw it out and plunder its lair).

Well, you can try all you want, but sometimes the players make it happen. Dm's can't be prepared for everything at once, but we can only try to be - and knowing my group, it's necessary. However, that is besides the point.

My brain wants to disagree with you on the "flee enemy, get full exp" issue, respectfully. Players fleeing from an enemy (thus learning several things about it) are better equipped to face it later on (or interact with it later on in the game). Isn't this their reward? Personally, I'd love to run away from encounters and get EXP for it - but I just see that causing arguments and complications for the future of any game.

[Nibbens]

Encounters give two types of rewards - XP and Treasure. By avoiding your monster, they are already denied the Treasure part, so that's what they pay for not killing it. It is perfectly fine to give them the full XP reward.

Now, that is a valid logic. lol. But, how does this concept work with creatures that drop "incidental" treasure. Just (mostly) valueless junk that PC would find on them, however?

[Gildedragon]

Well, you can try all you want, but sometimes the players make it happen. Dm's can't be prepared for everything at once, but we can only try to be - and knowing my group, it's necessary. However, that is besides the point.

My brain wants to disagree with you on the "flee enemy, get full exp" issue, respectfully. Players fleeing from an enemy (thus learning several things about it) are better equipped to face it later on (or interact with it later on in the game). Isn't this their reward? Personally, I'd love to run away from encounters and get EXP for it - but I just see that causing arguments and complications for the future of any game.

Thing is you are seeing all evasions from combat as turning tail, as failures. Implicit in that is the assumption that the goal of an encounter is "kill or subdue the other guy" when it isn't necessarily. Encounters exist within a narrative: they are obstacles in pursuit of a goal. If they can further that goal, if they overcome that obstacle, they get XP.
Another analogy: traps.
If PCs fly over a pressure plate-triggered trap they ought get full XP for it, not only if the rogue disarms it. Even if they know the trap is there and they couldn't disarm it. Because the goal wasn't to disarm the trap, but get past it. Ditto for monsters just randomly encountered

[SinsI]

Now, that is a valid logic. lol. But, how does this concept work with creatures that drop "incidental" treasure. Just (mostly) valueless junk that PC would find on them, however?
The treasure creatures "drop" is not all the treasure you can get out of them - there are things like bounties that you get as well.

[Grayson01]

In the Bandersnatch example flying over it wasover coming the enchounter. Bypassing an enemy while still progressing forward should earn XP for overcoming the encounter.

I had a DM who didn't give us full XP against two earth Elemtals becausemy Cleric with the Air Domain turned them. It still to this day bugs the crapout of me. You shouldn't penalize PCs for coming up with non-Smash the monster ways of dealing with a problem. NOt everything needs to be solved with I SMASH!!! It stifles creativity and any other form of resalutions.

And it can creates negative feed back towards the DM and a feeling of rail roading and not allowing the players to use their strengths.

[Nibbens]

Thing is you are seeing all evasions from combat as turning tail, as failures. Implicit in that is the assumption that the goal of an encounter is "kill or subdue the other guy" when it isn't necessarily. Encounters exist within a narrative: they are obstacles in pursuit of a goal. If they can further that goal, if they overcome that obstacle, they get XP.
Another analogy: traps.
If PCs fly over a pressure plate-triggered trap they ought get full XP for it, not only if the rogue disarms it. Even if they know the trap is there and they couldn't disarm it. Because the goal wasn't to disarm the trap, but get past it. Ditto for monsters just randomly encountered

I guess it doesn't help the fact that no one in either of my groups have ever given exp for traps completed or passed. lol.
Regardless, this does make a lot of sense. Seeing it as a whole narrative is an interesting concept and I've never thought of it that way. This also ties nicely with the "EXP aren't used for anything in pathfinder so why don't you just give them levels at certain points" idea. I think the implicit idea of "EXP is for a job well done" is motivating for players - which also ties with the "give them full EXP for encounters avoided, etc," but personally I never considered the action of fleeing as heroic or "job well done" and I guess I'm lucky that all my players feel the same way about it. Nevertheless, the "progression over the course of a story" makes perfect sense, and has weight.

[DarkSonic1337]

Suppose that the PCs were actually on a time limit for their quest. Like they needed to get some ancient artifact delivered to a king before a certain date to aid him in a pivotal battle or something.
Now let's say that the party stayed and fought this thing, but doing so made them miss the assigned date.They would've FAILED THEIR MISSION and as such wouldn't look very heroic would they? While the party who evaded (note, not ran from or avoided. SUCCESSFULLY EVADED) the creature showed up on time and saved the day like big damn heroes.


For the more anti-hero route, consider a two prisoners escaping from a heavily guarded jail. One fights the guards, killing many of them but is ultimately caught, the other hides from the guards and sneaks past them successfully escaping. Which one is more impressive?


The goal of the encounter is always the most important factor because it tells you what the PCs motivations are. Some people like outwitting monsters rather than needlessly fighting them, and if that coincides with their goals I think that's pretty heroic on it's own. On the other hand, staying behind and engaging something that could very well kill them and END THEIR MISSION when it isn't necessary is arrogant and foolish. A monster simply being there is not enough reason to engage it and endanger the mission. It needs to either be something that's more difficult to run away from than it is to defeat, or it needs to actually be endangering their mission in some way where leaving it alone doesn't resolve the issue.

Do note that PCs pretty much always have multiple missions going on at once. If one of their goals is to save innocent lives then they can't very well leave a dangerous beast within walking distance of a town, but they have no reason to go killing random things they find in the forbidden forest on an uncharted island.

[NichG]

I wonder how people would feel about a game where if the PCs fail their overall mission, they get zero XP for any of the encounters they had or activities they performed along the way.

[DarkSonic1337]

I'd be fine with such a game....to a degree.

My example of the "deliver an item to the king" was supposed to illustrate that killing everything is not the same as saving the day. In a game that only awarded EXP at the end of quests or goals, I'd like the long term quests to be broken down into shorter achievable goals (though still longer than single encounters), more akin to the prison escape example. The overarching quest might be to meet up with some informant outside of the town for some information, and breaking out of the prison would just be a smaller goal along the way. Picking the lock/getting the keys/whatever you do to get out of the cell, getting past the guards, and finally escaping whatever post prison break chase scene would all be one quest and would award experience once you completed all of these objectives. Finding the informant would be another goal, and finally actually receiving the information (maybe he's unwilling to part with it, or he's heavily guarded, or whatever) would complete the main quest.

I think it could be an interesting way to award EXP. It encourages goal oriented thinking and achieving success through the most efficient methods you can come up with. Though people will probably get annoyed when they don't get rewarded for "partial successes."

[mashlagoo1982]

I seem to be on the unpopular side of the opinions here.

As the situation is described, I do not feel the players deserve to have xp awarded.

Had the players engaged the opponent in some manner that actually had an effect on it (kill, disable, dominate, charm, or whatever) xp would have been rewarded.

However, the players simply acted to avoid and ignore the monster.

To me, this would be like the party ignoring a guard post in a dungeon of which they know about.

If there is an easy path to avoid the guard post entirely and the players decide to take it, no xp would be awarded.

Receiving no xp is also not a penalty. Those come in the form of level loss, death, ability damage and the like.

Obviously this is very situational and from what I remember in the rules there is no correct answer.
Actually, there maybe some relivate text in the DMG about this.

Basically, only characters who take part in an encounter should receive any reward. Characters who do not participate receive no reward (DMG pg37 2nd paragraph).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If most or all of your XP comes from completing objectives (a completely valid variant rule presented in the DMG), then this point becomes somewhat moot. The consequence of killing or avoiding the monster becomes entirely in-game - if we avoid it, it might come back to bite us later, literally - as it should be.

[TSED]

I seem to be on the unpopular side of the opinions here.

As the situation is described, I do not feel the players deserve to have xp awarded.

Had the players engaged the opponent in some manner that actually had an effect on it (kill, disable, dominate, charm, or whatever) xp would have been rewarded.

However, the players simply acted to avoid and ignore the monster.

To me, this would be like the party ignoring a guard post in a dungeon of which they know about.

If there is an easy path to avoid the guard post entirely and the players decide to take it, no xp would be awarded.

Receiving no xp is also not a penalty. Those come in the form of level loss, death, ability damage and the like.

Obviously this is very situational and from what I remember in the rules there is no correct answer.
Actually, there maybe some relivate text in the DMG about this.

Basically, only characters who take part in an encounter should receive any reward. Characters who do not participate receive no reward (DMG pg37 2nd paragraph).

The guard post analogy is flawed. In that example, they literally had no interaction with the guardpost whatsoever. In what actually transpired in-game, they blew resources on flying AND on healing afterwards. They were chased until they could no longer be chased (at least directly). A better example would be some low level adventurers going through a boring dungeon dive, alerting a guardpost, running through a chokepoint door and casting Close Portal on the door behind them. They've got to heal up from a few stray arrows, but they absolutely prevented the guards from doing their intended purpose without killing them.

People's insistence on murdering EVERYTHING in D&D always boggles my mind. It works if you're running an evil campaign, but... most people don't. Most people think they're the good guys. While murdering anything and everything that dares to stand before them.

[ericgrau]

True, this does make sense. However, I still feel that flying above an enemy that cannot fly is cheap. lol. The enemy peppered their hides as they escaped, but it wanted blood. haha.
Anyway, thanks.

Around level 15 it has no answer to flight, and whatever it is involved in the party can safely ignore with no need to thwart it. So two issues there: it wasn't that hard of a fight to begin with and something with enough power to shatter a small town has nothing better to do than be a random encounter for high level PCs.

The party should get the same xp however they defeat it, but something with poor mobility at high level without any reason to force the players to engage it (NPCs in trouble or whatever) means this creature is much easier than its original CR and the players should get reduced xp whether they defeat it with fighting or not. OTOH if you run your other encounters that way and give full xp, this one shouldn't be any different. Reduce xp for all the encounters where circumstances favor the PCs: out in the open, doesn't try to ambush the PCs, dumb tactics or no tactics or super poor tactical setup in spite of its efforts, no hostage or other macguffin, etc. Or reduce it for none of them and continue to go easy on your group. But don't expect them to make it harder on themselves by not figuring out something as simple as flight at high level. At level 8, sure this'd be a clever plan because of however they figured out to give the whole party flight. At level 15, it's pretty normal.

[mashlagoo1982]

The guard post analogy is flawed. In that example, they literally had no interaction with the guardpost whatsoever. In what actually transpired in-game, they blew resources on flying AND on healing afterwards. They were chased until they could no longer be chased (at least directly). A better example would be some low level adventurers going through a boring dungeon dive, alerting a guardpost, running through a chokepoint door and casting Close Portal on the door behind them. They've got to heal up from a few stray arrows, but they absolutely prevented the guards from doing their intended purpose without killing them.

People's insistence on murdering EVERYTHING in D&D always boggles my mind. It works if you're running an evil campaign, but... most people don't. Most people think they're the good guys. While murdering anything and everything that dares to stand before them.

I intentionally created the example that way because I feel there is little important difference between the two scenarios.
True, the characters did expend resources... but they were done in a manner to avoid the encounter.

Due to the way this encounter was created, it seemed the goal was suppose to be "Kill this Monster before it Kills the Party".
From what was stated, if the characters were suppose to fight the monster, more time could have been taken to craft the scenario to play out better (why attack in the first place when flying away is an option?).
As a side note, if the DM is constantly creating scenarios where the Fly spell is ineffective, the players may feel cheated (and rightfully so). Flying should be a strategic option.

If flying away for full xp is going to be the case, why bother fighting random monsters in the first place? Being attacked by a hungry Displacer Beast? Fly away for full xp. Being attacked by a group of orc bandits? Fly away for full xp. Instead, maybe try to interact with those scenarios and see what happens.

A closer example would be if a party had knowledge of a guard post down a left fork, but decided to take a right fork (which cost 1000gp) that also left them slightly exposed. Again, no interaction on the party side (disable, dominate, kill, converse with the guards), but the guards take pot shots at the party. The only expenditure of an resources is the 1000gp to take the easy way and the healing afterward. They Fly spell is the easy way. The party receives no xp because there was no interaction worthy to receive xp for.

Your example of running through a choke-point door and casting Close Portal would be worthy of partial xp probably in my book. But that would depend on the exact situation. In that case, the goal was to "Not be Captured or Killed by the Guards" specifically and the party succeeded while disabling pursuit with Close Portal spell.

[Nibbens]

People's insistence on murdering EVERYTHING in D&D always boggles my mind. It works if you're running an evil campaign, but... most people don't. Most people think they're the good guys. While murdering anything and everything that dares to stand before them.

I agree with this. The party's Pally (and a really good role-player to boot) makes this a point. There's no sense in going through an obstacle if the option to go around it presents itself. The "murder everything" concept probably comes from the conditioning we've received for years. All the way back to the beginning of D&D we paid money for big thick books of creative monsters with EXP attached to them. Even the names of these books "Monster Manual," "Rascals and Varmints," "Bestiary" are all names of things that the good guys kill in movies and stories. I think it's only reasonable to expect that we players would assume the only way to get EXP from an encounter is to kill every-darn-thing the DM tells us is a threat. Heck, I didn't even know there was a way to get EXP outside killing monsters until 4ed came out, and I've been playing since 2nd edition. EDIT: I am mistaken - in second edition there were optional rules where a thief received 2 EXP for every gold he stole and Wizards received 200EXP for every spell they cast. I just remembered this. lol.

I think this idea of not killing the monsters and getting EXP for it (while not new, in any sense of the word) might not have been as popular as "KILLKILLKILL" method for a very long time. I sure wish my DM's had implemented this while I was growing up in the younger years of D&D.

[Elderand]

I agree with this. The party's Pally (and a really good role-player to boot) makes this a point. There's no sense in going through an obstacle if the option to go around it presents itself. The "murder everything" concept probably comes from the conditioning we've received for years. All the way back to the beginning of D&D we paid money for big thick books of creative monsters with EXP attached to them. Even the names of these books "Monster Manual," "Rascals and Varmints," "Bestiary" are all names of things that the good guys kill in movies and stories. I think it's only reasonable to expect that we players would assume the only way to get EXP from an encounter is to kill every-darn-thing the DM tells us is a threat. Heck, I didn't even know there was a way to get EXP outside killing monsters until 4ed came out, and I've been playing since 2nd edition.

I think this idea of not killing the monsters and getting EXP for it (while not new, in any sense of the word) might not have been as popular as "KILLKILLKILL" method for a very long time. I sure wish my DM's had implemented this while I was growing up in the younger years of D&D.

Does anyone have any word on this - was there ever any formal "exp not just granted for monsters, but for objectives completed" date? Or was this just always around, and I just never knew about it?

It was always around
In fact in the Beginner/expert/immortal and Rulecyclopedia at least you didn't get most of your XP for killing stuff.
You got most of your XPby aquiring treasure.

[Nibbens]

It was always around
In fact in the Beginner/expert/immortal and Rulecyclopedia at least you didn't get most of your XP for killing stuff.
You got most of your XPby aquiring treasure.

Sorry, I edited that out of my original argument. I realized my erroneous statement and edited it immediately after posting it. lol.

[Gildedragon]

I intentionally created the example that way because I feel there is little important difference between the two scenarios.
True, the characters did expend resources... but they were done in a manner to avoid the encounter.

Due to the way this encounter was created, it seemed the goal was suppose to be "Kill this Monster before it Kills the Party".
From what was stated, if the characters were suppose to fight the monster, more time could have been taken to craft the scenario to play out better (why attack in the first place when flying away is an option?).
As a side note, if the DM is constantly creating scenarios where the Fly spell is ineffective, the players may feel cheated (and rightfully so). Flying should be a strategic option.

If flying away for full xp is going to be the case, why bother fighting random monsters in the first place? Being attacked by a hungry Displacer Beast? Fly away for full xp. Being attacked by a group of orc bandits? Fly away for full xp. Instead, maybe try to interact with those scenarios and see what happens.

A closer example would be if a party had knowledge of a guard post down a left fork, but decided to take a right fork (which cost 1000gp) that also left them slightly exposed. Again, no interaction on the party side (disable, dominate, kill, converse with the guards), but the guards take pot shots at the party. The only expenditure of an resources is the 1000gp to take the easy way and the healing afterward. They Fly spell is the easy way. The party receives no xp because there was no interaction worthy to receive xp for.


A better analogy is to put the guards to sleep. Single spell disables them and the PCs can go on their merry way.

Experience is got by overcoming the challenge. They did, albeit non-violently. The monster ceased to be a problem and it could not pursue them (no scent or good line of sight (forest after all)). Full XP for the encounter was earned. If they were getting less than the monster-killers, then you are either penalizing the one group or rewarding the killing on top of the encounter's CR. (Giving full XP to the escape artists isn't penalizing monster killers as monster killers are not getting any less XP).

The lack of in game motivation to fight a monster is partly the DMs fault. Why ought they fight the monster? XP isn't a valid answer as it is out of game; so what then? Omnicidal tendencies? Looking for a bsnatch pelt? The bsnatch has been terrorizing a nearby village?

"Meaningful interaction" is just weasel-wording the players out of XP. Would you similarly dock the XP of players that cast sleep on a raiding party, or sneak past an obstacle, or use shapestone to blitz through a maze, or used quick-diplomacy to defuse combat? I hope not, but in terms of overcoming a challenge they are equivalent to using fly to bypass a wandering monster

[Alex12]

Looking at the bandersnatch description, it sounds to me like it's got them marked for death. So it's going to follow them.

As for the underlying question: if you find out a way to bypass or neutralize an obstacle, you get the XP. If there's a trap, and you know there's a trap, you don't have to disable it. You can fly over it, or Disintegrate it, or summon up something to trigger the trap and leave it expended on something expendable, or dig through the wall and go around the trap, or just take another path to the goal.
If, on the other hand, they just abandon the goal, that's different.
If your goal is to assassinate one guy protected by an army, flying over the army where they can't even see you, let alone hit you and fireballing his tent is totally viable, and will get just as much XP as carving a swathe of mangled bodies through the army to the target and killing him in melee. Reward creative thinking.

[Nibbens]

Looking at the bandersnatch description, it sounds to me like it's got them marked for death. So it's going to follow them.

Yup. You got that right! LOL.


Reward creative thinking.

Unfortunately, this is the logic that I've been fighting with since the beginning of my DM's. I've been conditioned to think that EXP was only gained through the death of monsters. Even the group I play with believe (through no fault of mine, other than continued conditioning) the reward for evading an encounter is that they didn't have to encounter it - thus getting through to their goal faster.

Personally, I always believed that EXP should be a reward for creativity as well - but my players actually reject this notion. (Like I mentioned earlier - they all feel that they shouldn't receive full EXP for the encounter (Even when I gave them the option to received full!)) The current consensus among my group is that they should received closer to 1/4 - the Mage rejected the notion of even receiving any.

While this belief is contrary to many of us here - as this would hinder future creative thinking - my players disagree, believing that continually avoiding encounters would be a cheap way for their characters to gain levels - akin to scamming the system.

It would seem my players are in need of a paradigm shift? lol.

[Gildedragon]

Give them the XP and do it based on their actions. If they don't wanna level up they can always make out with a succubus.

Reward creative escapes, etc. now since the snatcher is hot on their trail: the encounter isn't over yet. Have them make a kn arcana (magical beast I presume) to know they are hounded

[Nibbens]

Give them the XP and do it based on their actions. If they don't wanna level up they can always make out with a succubus.

LOL. Yeah, these guys are great roleplayers, but don't like to feel cheated - and in this instance "giving them more EXP that i 'should'" is 'cheating them.' :/ go figure.


Reward creative escapes, etc. now since the snatcher is hot on their trail: the encounter isn't over yet. Have them make a kn arcana (magical beast I presume) to know they are hounded

Earlier you mentioned giving EXP for completed objectives, not necessarily killing the monster: the battle with the bandersnatch isn't over (because they will encounter it again), so in your opinion, I shouldn't reward them for the escape? Or should I? The only reason I ask is because they could potentially gain the EXP twice for one monster. It makes sense from your POV, but seems counter-intuitive. a single Bandersnatch is worth 51k EXP not 102 EXP. lol.

Sorry, just seeking clarification.

[NichG]

Earlier you mentioned giving EXP for completed objectives, not necessarily killing the monster: the battle with the bandersnatch isn't over (because they will encounter it again), so in your opinion, I shouldn't reward them for the escape? Or should I? The only reason I ask is because they could potentially gain the EXP twice for one monster. It makes sense from your POV, but seems counter-intuitive. a single Bandersnatch is worth 51k EXP not 102 EXP. lol.

Sorry, just seeking clarification.

This depends on the role of the Bandersnatch in the scenario. If the Bandersnatch is just a random encounter or something unrelated to their goals, then its worth 0xp inherently. The corollary to receiving XP for objectives accomplished is that if you go out of your way and make things more difficult for yourself through your own stupidity, you don't get rewarded extra for upping the difficulty. For example, if the goal is 'do something in a city across the ocean', then I wouldn't give the party XP for every monster in the ocean as a reward for completing that objective; I might not give any XP for ocean monsters at all if e.g. the party were Lv9 and I knew their mage had Teleport and the city was in range. If they choose to go sailing instead, that's entirely on them - any extra rewards they get will just be from selling monster blubber. If there's a concern over fairness, one way to do it would be to say ahead of time 'this objective has 5kxp attached to it' when they embark upon it, and just stick to that number regardless of what happens on the way. They can decide whether or not a given fight is 'in their budget' if they're feeling particularly pecuniary.

On the other hand, if the Bandersnatch is directly being used to thwart the PCs' goals somehow, then it makes sense for them to get XP for it when they complete the objective (regardless of whether the Bandersnatch is still hunting them at the time, mind you - unless not-being-hunted was their objective). For example, if the Bandersnatch is sent after them by the BBEG they're trying to kill, then they get XP for it when they kill the BBEG, not when they finally and definitively evade the Bandersnatch.

[Gildedragon]

LOL. Yeah, these guys are great roleplayers, but don't like to feel cheated - and in this instance "giving them more EXP that i 'should'" is 'cheating them.' :/ go figure.



Earlier you mentioned giving EXP for completed objectives, not necessarily killing the monster: the battle with the bandersnatch isn't over (because they will encounter it again), so in your opinion, I shouldn't reward them for the escape? Or should I? The only reason I ask is because they could potentially gain the EXP twice for one monster. It makes sense from your POV, but seems counter-intuitive. a single Bandersnatch is worth 51k EXP not 102 EXP. lol.

Sorry, just seeking clarification.

But it is two bandersnatch encounters. Except maybe the second is better prepared.
In this particular case I would say half now and full when they manage to evade it for good

[mashlagoo1982]

A better analogy is to put the guards to sleep. Single spell disables them and the PCs can go on their merry way.


Good for them, full xp for the action. They did not avoid the situation. Instead, they disabled the guards in a non-violent manner and were able to continue.




Experience is got by overcoming the challenge. They did, albeit non-violently. The monster ceased to be a problem and it could not pursue them (no scent or good line of sight (forest after all)). Full XP for the encounter was earned. If they were getting less than the monster-killers, then you are either penalizing the one group or rewarding the killing on top of the encounter's CR.

And there is where I still do not agree. Unless the monster was employed by some greater enemy and the goal is "Avoid minion of BBEG" to the greater goal of "Stop the BBEG", the players instead decided to ignore the goal of "Kill this random monster". Should every ignored monster provide full xp? What if the players saw some encamped orcs instead and traveled around... would they get xp for that? They "overcame" the encounter through a non-violent method. Do you base xp on resources expended or actions taken on the part of the party?



The lack of in game motivation to fight a monster is partly the DMs fault. Why ought they fight the monster? XP isn't a valid answer as it is out of game; so what then? Omnicidal tendencies? Looking for a bsnatch pelt? The bsnatch has been terrorizing a nearby village?

This is partly true, but the party members could come up with their own motivations. Also, it isn't always bad to have the goal of "Kill this random monster". If the party decides to ignore the encounter, they didn't accomplish the goal and thus receive no xp. This is true in many other games as well.




Would you similarly dock the XP of players that cast sleep on a raiding party, or sneak past an obstacle, or use shapestone to blitz through a maze, or used quick-diplomacy to defuse combat? I hope not, but in terms of overcoming a challenge they are equivalent to using fly to bypass a wandering monster.
In all situations except stoneshape to blitz through a maze or fly to bypass wandering monsters, the players would receive appropriate xp? Why? Because they dealt with the encounter, not skipped them. Note how in those two instances, the scenarios the players avoided the problem. They didn't address it. Actually, "sneak past an obstacle" is very vague. Most likely they would receive full xp, but it is hard to say without more details.




"Meaningful interaction" is just weasel-wording the players out of XP.

Really? How so? Is simply not getting killed enough to warrant an xp reward? If so, I have a trophy to award for participating in this conversation... it is more then the characters did in this scenario.

[Nibbens]

But it is two bandersnatch encounters. Except maybe the second is better prepared. In this particular case I would say half now and full when they manage to evade it for good

In your own words stated earlier:


If there is no reason to fight there is no reason to fight. To dock PCs XP for that is to act out of spite that they saw through a less-than-solid encounter.

I assure you, I was not considering acting out of spite, but genuine concern for the fairness of the game, as you can now hopefully see. I'm also glad we agree that the situation is not as cut and dry as it looks. lol.

[mashlagoo1982]

While this belief is contrary to many of us here - as this would hinder future creative thinking - my players disagree, believing that continually avoiding encounters would be a cheap way for their characters to gain levels - akin to scamming the system.

Exactly this. You seem to have good players. Rewarding creative solutions (diplomacy, disabling, manipulation, or whatever) is correct.

Rewarding avoiding situation is incorrect. The caveat to this is if the goal is to avoid something. Like in the case of sneaking past a guard.

[Gildedragon]

Really? How so? Is simply not getting killed enough to warrant an xp reward? If so, I have a trophy to award for participating in this conversation... it is more then the characters did in this scenario.

"Meaningful interaction" means that the players interacted with the challenge, and overcame it (avoided picking a lock by using passwall or some form of etherealness, or flew over the spiked pit), but not to the DMs satisfaction.
That is to say "meaninful interaction" means "do what the DM wants or get no XP" which is prettymuch the key to railroading.

Again, as I've been saying for a while: how a challenge is overcome isn't to be evaluated, but rather if it was or not. Which brings me to my next point:


I assure you, I was not considering acting out of spite, but genuine concern for the fairness of the game, as you can now hopefully see. I'm also glad we agree that the situation is not as cut and dry as it looks. lol.

(goes read up on the bandersnatch)

Issue with the bandersnatch is this tracking ability (though the poor visibility up through the canopy and the fact they are flying ought add a +35 (at least) to the track DC; probably closer to give the bandersnatch a 50/50 (at best) of finding them again.

Though combat could probably have continued with them airborne (the quills have a 300' range)

Now they seem to have successfully evaded it (note: have they kn. arcana checked to identify it? With a fly caster they ought have decent ranks. the check can let them know about the tracking capacities and allow them to better hide their trail or prepare against round two).
Successful evasion: Full XP for the encounter
Partial evasion: Partial XP, as the monster will find them again.

Note that the goal in the encounter (the actual goal) was "Get past the monster" as there was no other reason to engage the creature. Thus use that goal as the motor for XP allocation.

[mashlagoo1982]

"Meaningful interaction" means that the players interacted with the challenge, and overcame it (avoided picking a lock by using passwall or some form of etherealness, or flew over the spiked pit), but not to the DMs satisfaction.
That is to say "meaninful interaction" means "do what the DM wants or get no XP" which is prettymuch the key to railroading.

Again, as I've been saying for a while: how a challenge is overcome isn't to be evaluated, but rather if it was or not. Which brings me to my next point:



(goes read up on the bandersnatch)

Issue with the bandersnatch is this tracking ability (though the poor visibility up through the canopy and the fact they are flying ought add a +35 (at least) to the track DC; probably closer to give the bandersnatch a 50/50 (at best) of finding them again.

Though combat could probably have continued with them airborne (the quills have a 300' range)

Now they seem to have successfully evaded it (note: have they kn. arcana checked to identify it? With a fly caster they ought have decent ranks. the check can let them know about the tracking capacities and allow them to better hide their trail or prepare against round two).
Successful evasion: Full XP for the encounter
Partial evasion: Partial XP, as the monster will find them again.

Note that the goal in the encounter (the actual goal) was "Get past the monster" as there was no other reason to engage the creature. Thus use that goal as the motor for XP allocation.

That interpretation of "do what the DM wants or no XP" is only partly correct. The roll of the DM is referee and part of that is what warrants receiving a reward. As stated before, there are alternate options for receiving full xp. But ignoring the issue is NOT one of them under most circumstances. There are plenty of options other then ignoring/fleeing the opponent. If you have a bad DM, this can lead to railroading... or the impression of being railroaded.

If the DM had made it so the characters were forced to fight the monster and their methods for avoiding the encounter were removed, that would be railroading. Since the players still had the option to fly away, they were not railroaded. However, that still does not warrant xp. The challenge was not overcome, it was avoided. Showing the back of a PC to an opponent is really going to teach the PC a lot.

Without further details, it is improper to suggest the goal of the encounter was to "Get past the monster". Get past to where? There has to be something more for that to be an appropriate goal. Otherwise, this monster is just a wandering chunk of xp that the party passed up. Going back to all the other examples (which have not been addressed), could players simply ignore the encounters and receive full xp?

What if the DM was really being a jerk and threw a tarrasque at a level 8 party? Could they just fly away and receive full xp and gain +5 levels each for "overcoming" the challenge? (Granted, if a DM actually did this, they would deserve what they get. That is really unfair. Also, surviving an encounter with a tarrasque at that level may warrant some xp, but nothing close to full.)

[Gildedragon]

That interpretation of "do what the DM wants or no XP" is only partly correct. The roll of the DM is referee and part of that is what warrants receiving a reward. As stated before, there are alternate options for receiving full xp. But ignoring the issue is NOT one of them under most circumstances. There are plenty of options other then ignoring/fleeing the opponent. If you have a bad DM, this can lead to railroading... or the impression of being railroaded.

If the DM had made it so the characters were forced to fight the monster and their methods for avoiding the encounter were removed, that would be railroading. Since the players still had the option to fly away, they were not railroaded. However, that still does not warrant xp.

Without further details, it is improper to suggest the goal of the encounter was to "Get past the monster". Get past to where? There has to be something more for that to be an appropriate goal. Otherwise, this monster is just a wandering chunk of xp that the party passed up. Going back to all the other examples (which have not been addressed), could players simply ignore the encounters and receive full xp?

What if the DM was really being a jerk and threw a tarrasque at a level 8 party? Could they just fly away and receive full xp and gain +5 levels each for "overcoming" the challenge? (Granted, if a DM actually did this, they would deserve what they get. That is really unfair. Also, surviving an encounter with a tarrasque at that level may warrant some xp, but nothing close to full.)

a few points:
1) Fight or get no XP is removing the viability of non-combat solutions to an encounter; that is to say, it is your definition of railroading, only less overt (but as effective)
2) thing is, flying over an opponent, passwalling through a maze, knocking a lock open, etc isn't ignoring the opponent. It is tactics.
3) you can level up a max of 2. And the question is: what was the purpose of the tarrasque there. What was the challenge. "See what the PCs do" isn't a purpose or a challenge. "Survive a run-in with the tarrasque" is, and yeah, if you spring that on Lvl 8 PCs you best be prepared to give them enough XP to fill a few buckets, as the maximum stated CR for level 8's is CR 15. They probably ought up 5 levels (though IIRC the max one can level up in a single go is 2) because, well, level 13 is the earliest they ought be fighting CR 20s.
4) Indeed "gest past to where" is left hanging. But it was presented as a wandering monster. They engaged it in combat, and then opted a different tactic "we don't need to fight it" and (probably) shook it off their trail. Maybe not, but the second run in (should it happen) should be managed as a different situation entirely (ideally as a better constructed encounter).

5) You cannot "ignore" encounters. That is to say, the DM sets up encounters, these have a purpose, a "will the players manage to X?" where X can be: retrieve the gem, get safely to some place, etcetera.
If the encampment is background it is background, if it is an encounter, however, one has to ask "what is the CR of the encampment" and "what is its purpose" is it to provide the PCs with a large battle situation, an area to explore, an obstacle in their attempt to get to the mountain...
it could be a number of these, so you ask the players what they want to do. They might want to avoid it entirely. In which case that, avoiding it, is the goal. You figure out what the stats of the orcs's patrols are, the players to their sneaky rolls, hiding their tracks, the orcs do their spots and searches and listens... and voila. if they succeed then they get the XP for the patrols. if they fail; now a new question presents itself: can they get away safely. The CR stays the same: The encounter is not yet over, and the possibility of this failure (and ensuing battle) is calculated with the CR of evading the situation (just as a creature's summoning prowess is calculated into its CR).

[DarkSonic1337]

And there is where I still do not agree. Unless the monster was employed by some greater enemy and the goal is "Avoid minion of BBEG" to the greater goal of "Stop the BBEG", the players instead decided to ignore the goal of "Kill this random monster". Should every ignored monster provide full xp? What if the players saw some encamped orcs instead and traveled around... would they get xp for that? They "overcame" the encounter through a non-violent method. Do you base xp on resources expended or actions taken on the part of the party?

If the orcs spotted them and attacked them while they had no particular reason to kill the orcs, YES I'd give them xp for spending resources and running away from them. The goal ISN'T to kill every monster that threatens them, the goal is to "survive the potentially dangerous encounter," which they did. Not everyone wants to play a band of murder hobos.

On the other hand, I probably wouldn't have the orcs just attack them outta nowhere either, because I dislike motivation-less encounters to begin with.




This is partly true, but the party members could come up with their own motivations. Also, it isn't always bad to have the goal of "Kill this random monster". If the party decides to ignore the encounter, they didn't accomplish the goal and thus receive no xp. This is true in many other games as well. Then make it clear that killing the monster is the goal beforehand! It's not fair to your players to say "actually you're supposed to kill anything that attacks you" after the fact, since as far as they knew their goal was something entirely unrelated to the beasts they encountered.




In all situations except stoneshape to blitz through a maze or fly to bypass wandering monsters, the players would receive appropriate xp? Why? Because they dealt with the encounter, not skipped them. Note how in those two instances, the scenarios the players avoided the problem. They didn't address it. [I]Actually, "sneak past an obstacle" is very vague. Most likely they would receive full xp, but it is hard to say without more details.

So finding your way through a maze by destroying the maze is not a viable solution? The maze is just in your way, it's just an obstacle. Maybe you need an item from inside of it, or maybe you need to get to the exit to be on your way or whatever, but it's an obstacle. And tearing down obstacles with brute force solutions (and stone shape is indeed a brute force solution, just like teleporting around things, walking through walls, ect) is a perfectly viable tactic. Simple, but effective.

However if the party HAS simple solutions like this you need to adjust the CR of your encounter! A maze is NOT a hard encounter for a party that has the mentioned abilities, even if they chose not to use them. You as a DM need to remember what your party can do, and assign exp based on the capabilities of your party. Then if the party DOESN'T take the smart (note, not easy. SMART) way out you can let them know later that the reason that they seemed to get such little xp is that...they made the encounter more difficult than it needed to be.

Flying past wandering monsters shouldn't give XP sure. Though frankly neither should FIGHTING these wondering monsters. Picking fights to gain XP is literally just farming. Those monsters should only give XP if they actively threaten the party of their own accord, and in that case you have to decide if the party REALLY HAS TO kill the thing or if it's just some obstacle standing between them and their real goal (in which case avoiding it is no different than the sneaking past guards or prison escape missions).





Really? How so? Is simply not getting killed enough to warrant an xp reward? If so, I have a trophy to award for participating in this conversation... it is more then the characters did in this scenario.

Yes, simply not getting killed by something that TRIED TO KILL YOU is enough to earn XP when the adventurers' goal is something unrelated to killing random monsters. But hey you can have killing random monsters be a perfectly viable goal, but MAKE IT CLEAR!

The mayor hires the PCs to clean up the surrounding area to make his town safer. The merchant asks PCs to kill dangerous beasts along his trade route, the PCs find a creature that has been given a bounty because it's been endangering a nearby city. There's plenty of ways to let the players know that they're supposed to be killing stuff along the way, but don't assume every player is automatically in the "Heroes should kill anything that attacks them because anything that attacks them is unquestionably evil and doesn't deserve to live!" camp.


Keep in mind that at certain levels you frankly need to change what kind of obstacles you throw at the PCs. If the PCs can fly, keep in mind that any encounter that can be easily solved with flight should not be considered difficult for the PCs, unless you introduce some other circumstances that make flying a difficult option. If the party can turn invisible sneak missions need to include detection abilities on the enemies' side to be considered remotely challenging, if the party can stone shape mazes need to have reforming walls and shifting layouts to hide their goodies (eventually the mage will run out of stone shapes btw. He is still using fairly high level spell slots to solve your encounter). Throw real challenges at them that are appropriate to their abilities, or throw the same challenges and drastically reduce the xp gained because...they're no longer challenging.

[Nibbens]

Throw real challenges at them that are appropriate to their abilities, or throw the same challenges and drastically reduce the xp gained because...they're no longer challenging.

Therein lies the initial problem: Award Partial EXP for a an effective CR of less than the given CR? Or award full EXP for an effective CR which is less than the given CR? Both raise interesting ethical questions/problems.

In one case we have a creature who's CR is 15, but composition/makeup of the party rendered the CR to a threat of about 9. Which EXP should you reward, knowing that either one could reinforce bad habits among your players.

Again, I am admitting my fault for the dubious encounter situation, but I will only preface it as I said earlier - As DM's we can plan for many things, but sometimes our players force us to make swift decisions. Some of these decisions play out better than others. This one, unfortunately did not.

The dilemma here is more important than the solution it seems. lol.

[Gildedragon]

Therein lies the initial problem: Award Partial EXP for a an effective CR of less than the given CR? Or award full EXP for an effective CR which is less than the given CR? Both raise interesting ethical questions/problems.

In one case we have a creature who's CR is 15, but composition/makeup of the party rendered the CR to a threat of about 9. Which EXP should you reward, knowing that either one could reinforce bad habits among your players.

Again, I am admitting my fault for the dubious encounter situation, but I will only preface it as I said earlier - As DM's we can plan for many things, but sometimes our players force us to make swift decisions. Some of these decisions play out better than others. This one, unfortunately did not.

The dilemma here is more important than the solution it seems. lol.

The encounter was CR 15, the party coped with it with ease because the party had the right resources. With an encounter that is the same CR as the party they really ought win with ease pretty much all the time (it is the equivalent of a 4 on 1 with everyone the same level).

Check if the critter follows them to determine how complete a success it was. Move the game on.

[DarkSonic1337]

In general I'd award the xp of a CR 9 encounter. It may feel a bit weird to give such little exp for a monster rated so highly by the books, but there are plenty of monsters with vastly inflated CRs (the Tarrasqe for example) and you already have to adjudicate encounters based on how hard you think it will be for the party.

In this PARTICULAR INSTANCE I'd actually give them the full CR15 xp though (or rather partial xp since apparently this thing is going to be tracking them down so they haven't fully evaded it yet). They pulled a solution that you didn't think of and made the encounter easier than expected....which I fully support. Escaping from a tough fight that they really don't need to take makes the characters feel more human to me, and I'm also a sucker for exploiting weaknesses when you find them.

[NichG]

As far as effective CR, the answer is to recognize that the CR system is broken and don't use it to determine XP rewards at all. Consider that you can pretty much change the effective CR by a huge range depending on how you choose to optimize it, without actually influencing its by-the-book CR as a result. Even monster choice can do this.

Rather than letting your failures or mistakes damage the campaign, its better to recognize that to some degree its going to be inevitable that you make them and instead adopt a policy that makes it easy to correct by ad-hoc'ing the xp rewards.

Instead, I'd recommend having XP rewards based on the overall task that the PCs are pursuing, and if necessary be clear up-front about what those rewards will be. 'If you save the kingdom from the Assassin Guild, you each get 6kxp, minus 1000xp for every major NPC on the ruling council that dies in the process, but +1000xp for each major leader of the Assassin Guild you take out permanently.' Then if it turns out that wandering monster tables or happenstance mean you don't throw monsters whose CR adds up to that at the party, or if you end up going way over CR, so be it.

[Thanatosia]

OK, this is a situation that's been bugging me for a while. I have a vault the PCs want to get into. Guarding the vault is a Minotaur standing at it's doorway. The PCs however, approach the Vault from behind, and use a magic item to enter it magically - and never encounter the Minotaur, they actually don't even know it exists since they had no interest in approaching the vault from it's front and there was a path by which they could access it's back wall without going anywhere near it's front door. Should they get xp from a Guardian that they don't even know exists, but in a technical sense could be justifiably labeled as 'defeated' or overcame?

Would it make a difference if they had instead intended to approach from the front, but scouted the minotaur and then decided to use the magic item (an expended resource) rather then engage it?

[137beth]

So...you made a CR 17 encounter with no flying creatures? Outside?
That wasn't an appropriate challenge for the party. Flight is the norm at this level. A creature who cannot fly by CR 17 is no threat at all, unless they are in a confined space which prevents their opponents from flying. If they had wanted to fight, they could have just slung ranged attacks from the air and 'won' your encounter without being threatened at all.

[Nibbens]

OK, this is a situation that's been bugging me for a while. I have a vault the PCs want to get into. Guarding the vault is a Minotaur standing at it's doorway. The PCs however, approach the Vault from behind, and use a magic item to enter it magically - and never encounter the Minotaur, they actually don't even know it exists since they had no interest in approaching the vault from it's front and there was a path by which they could access it's back wall without going anywhere near it's front door. Should they get xp from a Guardian that they don't even know exists, but in a technical sense could be justifiably labeled as 'defeated' or overcame?

Again, just reiterations of the same dilemma. When crossing the ocean on a ship, do you give EXP for every shark and whale the PC's 'avoided?' What about burning down a forest to kill all the vipers and crows and wolves that live there to get EXP? What about if it was goblins: burn down the forest they live in to kill them all do you get the EXP for them as well as the potential wolves when the only resource used was a match? The challenge (thus CR) for striking a match is negligible, but the strategy to come up with the plan is then rewarded? What about the killing of the monsters? But how much EXP to give? The Match, the tactics? just the goblins? or every darn creature in the forest you knew or didn't even know were there?

There seems to be many theories here - and I certainly have no definitive answers. Although, personally, I would say if they players never prepared for/knew about the threat, then no. Don't give them the EXP for it, but others posting here might say otherwise. lol.

[Nibbens]

So...you made a CR 17 encounter with no flying creatures? Outside?
That wasn't an appropriate challenge for the party. Flight is the norm at this level. A creature who cannot fly by CR 17 is no threat at all, unless they are in a confined space which prevents their opponents from flying. If they had wanted to fight, they could have just slung ranged attacks from the air and 'won' your encounter without being threatened at all.

No, I didn't make a CR 17 encounter w/o flying creatures: my players encountered a single creature of CR17 in its natural habitat. The creature wasn't intended to be there in that situation - but the circumstances and player actions sessions ago dictated that it would be there. I won't go into details because I'm not going to bore you with a wall of text, but the fact of the matter is that it happened that way, regardless of what I originally planned to happen. And because of that fact, I posted my question to the forums. :)

[Thanatosia]

Again, just reiterations of the same dilemma. When crossing the ocean on a ship, do you give EXP for every shark and whale the PC's 'avoided?' What about burning down a forest to kill all the vipers and crows and wolves that live there to get EXP? What about if it was goblins: burn down the forest they live in to kill them all do you get the EXP for them as well as the potential wolves when the only resource used was a match? The challenge (thus CR) for striking a match is negligible, but the strategy to come up with the plan is then rewarded? What about the killing of the monsters? But how much EXP to give? The Match, the tactics? just the goblins? or every darn creature in the forest you knew or didn't even know were there?
How much xp do you get for Schrodinger's Cat?

[Nibbens]

How much xp do you get for Schrodinger's Cat?

This! LOL.

[mashlagoo1982]

If you are going to attempt to rebut my arguments, you could at least get them correct.

1. I never said fighting was the ONLY option (I said the exact opposite everywhere and it was still missed)
2. There are plenty of other options available to overcome a challenge
3. Outright ignoring an encounter is not a way to overcome a challenge (I believe RAW does support this)

Adding almost anything additional to the situation, like sneaking around the orc camp would not be outright ignoring it.

Ignoring it would be noticing the camp, turning around, and intentionally choosing to take no action that has any interaction with the encampment. Even skirting the encampment is still taking some action against it.

Where we seem to differ is if flying over an opponent is ignoring the encounter or overcoming it.

Obviously I am in the former and feel that way because A) The party performed no action that could be taken to mean they were addressing the issue of a monster attacking them and B) there was no clear indication that ignoring this encounter was toward some greater goal.

Going down the list of scenarios I suggested, the players could try to also talk with the band of Orcs to accomplish any number of goals. The same is true for the Displacer Beast. The guard post could be overcome through magic or clever manipulation. All of these solutions are non-violent. Yet it is assumed I am suggesting violence is the ONLY answer. IT IS NOT. Again... it is not. I never once suggested it was the only option (numerous occasion I said the exact opposite). Please be sure to remember this. I do encourage characters to be treated as something other then murder hobos (they need no encouragement from me to do this themselves).

However, pressing the "I choose to ignore this encounter" button by not interacting with the encounter should yield no xp.

With the example of the maze, simply blasting a hole though the maze would yield xp for overcoming the maze. However, there would be no xp for each trap and random monster the maze housed (unless maybe they were destroyed in the blast... details). The traps and random monster xp would only be awarded if they were encountered (by situation) and overcome.

The purpose of the tarrasque example was to demonstrate the flaw in the logic ignoring an encounter = xp reward. Should a party receive xp from teleporting away from a monster? Does it matter if the monster is way above their ability to handle? By the logic presented thus far, the party should receive xp. Personally, I feel that this is simply ludicrous. If the logic of ignoring an encounter = xp reward, what is to prevent the party from farming xp by encountering monsters and then choosing to ignore them and thus receiving xp? Obviously a well written scenario can be crafted, but eventually there is going to be the issue of railroading (What? Another area where Fly doesn't work? DM stop railroading us!)

I still stand by the statement that simply not being killed is not worthy of xp. If that were the case, what level should commoners be? They are fantastic at not being killed (though this can vary depending on your campaign). All those other examples given... that is more then simply existing and NOT being killed. Negotiating a truce between warring kingdoms, navigating through a trap and monster filled maze, sneaking around an orc camp... these are all more then simply not being killed. The characters are accomplishing something.

[Nibbens]

Cat, Schrodinger's CR ?
XP 100 or 0 depending on the viability of the cat.
N Tiny animal
Init +2; Senses: Maybe low-light vision, scent; Perception +5

DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 12 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 3 (1d8–1) (or it's already dead in the box)
Fort +1, Ref +4, Will +1

Box defense: Characters attacking Schrodinger's cat must break through it's box first.

OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee 2 claws +4 (1d2–4), bite +4 (1d3–4) - Always dealing 0 damage unless it isn't.
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.

STATISTICS
Str 3, Dex 15, Con 8, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7 - only if it's actually there.
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 6 (10 vs. trip)
Feats Weapon Finesse
Skills Climb +6, Perception +5, Stealth +14; Racial Modifiers +4 Climb, +infinity Stealth... or not.

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Familiar

The master of a cat familiar gains a +3 bonus on Stealth checks and -3 to Fortitude saves vs Poison


ECOLOGY
Environment temperate and hot plains or urban or dead or alive in a box.
Organization solitary, or not alive at all.
Treasure none

Cats typically weigh 5–15 pounds when fully grown. or roughly 20-30 pounds depending on what the box is made out of.

[mashlagoo1982]

Cat, Schrodinger's CR ?
XP 100 or 0 depending on the viability of the cat.
N Tiny animal
Init +2; Senses: Maybe low-light vision, scent; Perception +5

DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 12 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 3 (1d8–1) (or it's already dead in the box)
Fort +1, Ref +4, Will +1

Box defense: Characters attacking Schrodinger's cat must break through it's box first.

OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee 2 claws +4 (1d2–4), bite +4 (1d3–4) - Always dealing 0 damage unless it isn't.
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.

STATISTICS
Str 3, Dex 15, Con 8, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7 - only if it's actually there.
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 6 (10 vs. trip)
Feats Weapon Finesse
Skills Climb +6, Perception +5, Stealth +14; Racial Modifiers +4 Climb, +infinity Stealth... or not.

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Familiar

The master of a cat familiar gains a +3 bonus on Stealth checks and -3 to Fortitude saves vs Poison


ECOLOGY
Environment temperate and hot plains or urban or dead or alive in a box.
Organization solitary, or not alive at all.
Treasure none

Cats typically weigh 5–15 pounds when fully grown. or roughly 20-30 pounds depending on what the box is made out of.

This is great. Should there be some way to determine of the cat is there once the box defense is destroyed?

[Gildedragon]

No, I didn't make a CR 17 encounter w/o flying creatures: my players encountered a single creature of CR17 in its natural habitat. The creature wasn't intended to be there in that situation - but the circumstances and player actions sessions ago dictated that it would be there. I won't go into details because I'm not going to bore you with a wall of text, but the fact of the matter is that it happened that way, regardless of what I originally planned to happen. And because of that fact, I posted my question to the forums. :)

?
Ah. Sorry to say: you created the encounter. I don't see much of a way for the players to be the ones that dictate the random encounters. Also if it was "sessions ago" you had time to prep the suitable encounter.

--
Re: Mashlagoo

You might be saying "non combat solutions are acceptable" but your criteria of "suitable engagement" that makes combat the only guaranteed way to get XP. You would not begrudge the players if they killed the bandersnatch while flying out of range; but you do if they elude its attacks. After all, if flying to overcome an encounter isn't kosher for you as a suitable victory, neither would be: sneaking by with Silence and Invisibility, or using diplomacy if you can with ease hit 50, or zone of truthing a confession from a criminal.

Which is why, i repeat, you have to have the nature of the challenge well defined.
if the challenge is overcome, you get xp. No fiddling about with "sufficient interaction"; that idea's only use is to steal the player's rewards.

---
Re Tahanatosia

You give them XP for the vault's CR.
You take the whole package. An easy way to calculate it is to use the minotaur's CR as a guideline as that is the clearest hurdle. At a sort of base level you can justify it to yourself as "they outwitted the minotaur" as to why to use the mino's CR.

[Nibbens]

This is great. Should there be some way to determine of the cat is there once the box defense is destroyed?

If the cat is dead upon breaching the box defense, you're subjected to the same poison that killed the cat. If the cat is still alive, then you have to deal with the cat! HAHA!

[NichG]

No, I didn't make a CR 17 encounter w/o flying creatures: my players encountered a single creature of CR17 in its natural habitat. The creature wasn't intended to be there in that situation - but the circumstances and player actions sessions ago dictated that it would be there. I won't go into details because I'm not going to bore you with a wall of text, but the fact of the matter is that it happened that way, regardless of what I originally planned to happen. And because of that fact, I posted my question to the forums. :)

Zero xp then, regardless of whether they flee or fight. Interacting with the creature was unrelated to any particular goal or purpose of the players and simply happened to be there, possibly as a side-effect of some previous mission.

[mashlagoo1982]

?
Ah. Sorry to say: you created the encounter. I don't see much of a way for the players to be the ones that dictate the random encounters. Also if it was "sessions ago" you had time to prep the suitable encounter.

--
Re: Mashlagoo

You might be saying "non combat solutions are acceptable" but your criteria of "suitable engagement" that makes combat the only guaranteed way to get XP. You would not begrudge the players if they killed the bandersnatch while flying out of range; but you do if they elude its attacks. After all, if flying to overcome an encounter isn't kosher for you as a suitable victory, neither would be: sneaking by with Silence and Invisibility, or using diplomacy if you can with ease hit 50, or zone of truthing a confession from a criminal.

Which is why, i repeat, you have to have the nature of the challenge well defined.
if the challenge is overcome, you get xp. No fiddling about with "sufficient interaction"; that idea's only use is to steal the player's rewards.

---
Re Tahanatosia

You give them XP for the vault's CR.
You take the whole package. An easy way to calculate it is to use the minotaur's CR as a guideline as that is the clearest hurdle. At a sort of base level you can justify it to yourself as "they outwitted the minotaur" as to why to use the mino's CR.

I would need to think about the Silence and Invisibility spells, but probably no xp. Diplomacy would award full xp. Zone of Truth and a confession... what kind of criminal is this? That is way to easy (not from a DM perspective but from the NPC perspective) and few individuals would be foolish enough to fall for it. If they could get it to work that would still be full xp though.

Also, I maybe wrong. But I don't think I ever used the term suitable engagement. That strongly implies fighting.

My method for determine sufficient interaction is based on the goal. Typically the actions the players perform need to have some meaning on the goal set forth. If their actions have no bearing on the goal, they receive no xp. As the DM, I usually set the goals, though the actions of the party will also impact them. The players never tell me outright what the goals are. I infer from the situation presented what they should probably be. Obviously the goals need to be valid to the situation at hand. Usually the goals are pretty obvious (or at least the first steps toward completing said goal).

[Nibbens]

Ah. Sorry to say: you created the encounter. I don't see much of a way for the players to be the ones that dictate the random encounters. Also if it was "sessions ago" you had time to prep the suitable encounter.

What do you mean you can't see that? Players dictate everything. Player fun is more important than my plans, and cohesive story only *sometimes* trumps player fun. Players dictate everything. Period.

Secondly, no. there is no "time to prep" a suitable encounter - as I said over and over again. We cannot plan for every thing that our players might do. We can try, but we will fail.
The Bandersnatch was there, they moved across it's territory. It began it's territorial actions of tracking them. That's it.

[Gildedragon]

What do you mean you can't see that? Players dictate everything. Player fun is more important than my plans, and cohesive story only *sometimes* trumps player fun. Players dictate everything. Period.

Secondly, no. there is no "time to prep" a suitable encounter - as I said over and over again. We cannot plan for every thing that our players might do. We can try, but we will fail.
The Bandersnatch was there, they moved across it's territory. It began it's territorial actions of tracking them. That's it.

Perhaps more context is needed but i don't see how this came to pass. did they actively go looking for a bander? Roll the checks and track it to its lair? or what?
and in either case how were you blindsided by the bandersnatch appearing?
Why did you put in a bandersnatch if you weren't prepped to run the encounter well?

[Nibbens]

Perhaps more context is needed but i don't see how this came to pass. did they actively go looking for a bander? Roll the checks and track it to its lair? or what?
and in either case how were you blindsided by the bandersnatch appearing?
Why did you put in a bandersnatch if you weren't prepped to run the encounter well?

I was aware of the possibility of a Bandersnatch if only slightly. Player actions in various cities had an effect on the environment: shifting hunting ground of various things, etc. Bandersnatch was present in forest, but wasn't going to be used until later. However, the PC's take a path through the forest (out of a few options). I was going to play up the PC's being stalked by it - weather or not I made the decision to have a full on Bandersnatch battle was up to my PC's depending on how they handled the situation, etc. Deciding to fly away from it, it took a quill shot at them and that was that.

Now, the bandersnatch will be encountered more than I had planned as a repercussion of their decisions.

The encounter itself played out beautifully. Players were impressed and I actually had them scared for their characters lives - thus the fleeing.

I wasn't blindsided. I wasn't underprepared. The encounter wasn't "completely random." But I wasn't going to railroad my characters into any path. I wanted them to choose how to handle it. They did. A day later I began thinking about EXP and whether or not they should receive any: thus my original post.

All of this comment with the exception of this last paragraph is irrelevant. My question is not "how to be a better DM," as you've kindly offered your advice on over and over. Only my real question remained: EXP gain or no or how much? Followed by why or why not? At this point, I really just want to see how many different opinions there are about this subject. And as this post proves there are many. lol.

[mashlagoo1982]

Perhaps more context is needed but i don't see how this came to pass. did they actively go looking for a bander? Roll the checks and track it to its lair? or what?
and in either case how were you blindsided by the bandersnatch appearing?
Why did you put in a bandersnatch if you weren't prepped to run the encounter well?

These situations are actually really easy to encounter, especially if a DM is trying to build a somewhat fleshed out world without running the game on rails.

Players are anything but predictable and the more creative your players are, the more you will be forced to improvise.

I have so many stories where this has happened with the group I run... maybe I should start a thread for that.

[Nibbens]

These situations are actually really easy to encounter, especially if a DM is trying to build a somewhat fleshed out world without running the game on rails.

Players are anything but predictable and the more creative your players are, the more you will be forced to improvise.

I have so many stories where this has happened with the group I run... maybe I should start a thread for that.

Agreed. I find that about 50% of the time, things don't go as planned. And the variance could be as small as a few name changes here and there, to entire an entire month's worth of plot lines being changed by a single swing of events.
I find the best planning is done by having a great working knowledge of your world and an idea where you want things to go. Planning line by line gets a person too bogged down in details that may never even be brought up because of a single player choice. DMing should include a good deal of improvisation.