Your opinion on rewarding xp based on difficulty

[RealCheese]

Would there be consequences other than more reward for a harder battle and quicker levelling? I'm GMing a large party (6 players) and so I have been upping difficulty mostly by adding monsters to fights (instead of using higher cr monsters, since they would potentially oneshot my poor pc's) but some of the fights have been quite hard.
So I am toying with the idea of rewarding the difficulty experience instead of the base experience. Oh and ofcourse, I am moving the difficulty multiplier down one step to account for the high number of players.

[MaxWilson]

Go for it. Very reasonable house-rule IMHO.

[Bloody Peasant!]

That seems fair enough. I always completely ad-hoc XP based on a number of factors. It might infuriate some people not to stick to a strict system of distribution but my players don't seem to mind.

[Forum Explorer]

Seems reasonable to me.

[Grayson01]

As a Player I would appreciate and respect that call.

[BRKNdevil]

I already do that and it works fine if you want to speed through the first 5 levels. I also give them most of the exp if they manage to neutralize the threat as well so that they don't become dependent on killing people and I don't reward exp for random killing of random people. This i find leads to more roleplay and less people feeling gypped by an encounter

That said, it is always amusing for me, for them to understand a squad of goblins with shortbows is just as deadly as a few elite soldiers

[Giant2005]

The game should be that way anyway difficulty experience loses all meaning if it isn't given to the players.
Why should a single powerful enemy be worth more to the players than a bunch of lesser enemies if both encounters are supposedly equal in difficulty?

[Theodoxus]

This is why I use milestones instead of xp packets. I know what level I want the characters to be at each point in the story. My players have a tendency to sidetrack a lot - it's fun for me when they take a trip away from the main plot and hamper their leveling because they didn't hit the next milestone. Most of the side quests are level appropriate, but sometimes they step in the proverbial poop and realize they're over their head.

But when I play in packet xp games, I appreciate when the DM awards difficulty bonuses - especially the 'thinking outside the box' bonus for circumventing a potential TPK and pulling out a win.

[Likantropos]

I'd say "no" to this houserule.
Players fight hordes of mooks for a reason, so it's better to make the reason worthwile, not the fight. Let's say, the princess is in the castle guarded by 20 goblins. That would be a deadly encounter for an 11 level party. The players could maybe take them all at once, which they do and get a 20x50x4=4000 exp. Alternatively, the players can lure the goblins one-by-one and get 20 times 50 exp, just 1000. Which looks like punishing clever thinking.
On the other hand, players could find a goblin camp, raise the alarm and make all the small patrols gather around them, making an encounter deadlier and exp reward bigger. Which is way to munchkin-y.
What I usually do in my games is give big chunks of exp for quests. So, for example 1 it would be 1000 exp for killing the goblins the way the party sees fit, or circumventing the encounter altogether (if appropriate rp-wise) and 3000 exp for the princess.
Less bookkeeping and fairer to the players, imho.
P.S. If your players are fighting mooks just for the sake of fighting, with no goal, you shouldn't reward this sort of behavior at all.

[Longcat]

I would only use the houserule on the condition that factors that make such fights significantly easier (such as natural choke points) consequently reduce XP gained.

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, players could find a goblin camp, raise the alarm and make all the small patrols gather around them, making an encounter deadlier and exp reward bigger. Which is way to munchkin-y.

Sounds like a good way to become dead.

I'm fine, in principle, with granting more XP for doing things "the hard way" for practice. If I had a good system for giving more XP to those who fight blindfolded with one hand tied behind their back (and survive! of course), I would use it. Maybe this is why Inigo fights left-handed.

[Yorrin]

I've been adjusting the XP on difficulty so far (without telling my players) and it's been good to me. Especially for getting them past those first few fragile levels. But as somebody said upthread, make sure that your encounters make sense beforehand. And don't be afraid of a few strategically placed higher-CR enemies to eat up a good bit of your XP budget (still capping at CR=average party level, which is going to be a "boss" monster.)

[Abithrios]

I'd say "no" to this houserule.
Players fight hordes of mooks for a reason, so it's better to make the reason worthwile, not the fight. Let's say, the princess is in the castle guarded by 20 goblins. That would be a deadly encounter for an 11 level party. The players could maybe take them all at once, which they do and get a 20x50x4=4000 exp. Alternatively, the players can lure the goblins one-by-one and get 20 times 50 exp, just 1000. Which looks like punishing clever thinking.
On the other hand, players could find a goblin camp, raise the alarm and make all the small patrols gather around them, making an encounter deadlier and exp reward bigger. Which is way to munchkin-y.
What I usually do in my games is give big chunks of exp for quests. So, for example 1 it would be 1000 exp for killing the goblins the way the party sees fit, or circumventing the encounter altogether (if appropriate rp-wise) and 3000 exp for the princess.
Less bookkeeping and fairer to the players, imho.
P.S. If your players are fighting mooks just for the sake of fighting, with no goal, you shouldn't reward this sort of behavior at all.

If they start as a group, then the PCs use creative tactics to separate a large group into manageable smaller groups, I would count that as defeating the large group. Also, I think the reason for fighting mooks is often that they are in the way, or that they attacked the party.

[huttj509]

I would only use the houserule on the condition that factors that make such fights significantly easier (such as natural choke points) consequently reduce XP gained.

If they're factors on the encounter setup, I agree with you.

If it's easier because the players roll well or do something clever, don't reduce the xp.

[BW022]

Would there be consequences other than more reward for a harder battle and quicker levelling?


Sure. It depends upon how quickly you allow leveling and whether you continue it. PCs who level too quickly could become under equipped, gain abilities without an ability to practice, it can minimize roleplaying, it can unduly penalize players who miss sessions, it can make it more difficult for a DM (or the party) to judge their own abilities vs. potential foes, etc. It might still be worthwhile at low-levels to award XP more quickly to get them to 3rd-level or so where they aren't being slaughtered so easily.



I'm GMing a large party (6 players) and so I have been upping difficulty mostly by adding monsters to fights (instead of using higher cr monsters, since they would potentially oneshot my poor pc's) but some of the fights have been quite hard.


As a DM you can, and should adjust the CR and XP based on a number of factors. The CR system is balanced for a group of four players. At six, it isn't so well balanced. If you have a group of six, 3rd-level PCs... a CR 3 is not that challenging. When you divide the XP by the number of PCs... 6 means everyone is getting much less XP -- representing that fact that the combat is easier.

In order to balance it out, typically you just include two CR 3 creatures. This likely makes it a CR 4 equivalent combat. The upcoming DMG will likely have specific rules for this. As you've seen... using a single higher CR creature is not as "safe". A higher CR creature can often easily kill a single PC if they just focus on them. However, as long as the creature doesn't to this, or doesn't keep attacking an unconscious PC, the party will likely still prevail. At CR+2... it is likely getting iffy.



So I am toying with the idea of rewarding the difficulty experience instead of the base experience. Oh and ofcourse, I am moving the difficulty multiplier down one step to account for the high number of players.

DMs can, and should, do this. There are cases when a fight is much easier or more difficult than the CRs normally indicate. A group of CR 3 kobolds ambushing a sleeping group could be far more difficult than a group in trees engaging a CR 3 ogre. You can factor in the terrain, weapons, number of PCs, lighting conditions, etc.

However, what you shouldn't do is adjust the XP if players are either intelligent or stupid. If the players were warned of kobolds attacking and they camped in the middle of the road... don't give them any more XP even if they were nearly slaughtered. Likewise, if they scouted ahead, detected the ogre, and planned an ambush in the trees... give them full XP.

Finally, a lot of DMs just do away with XP based on combat encounters. Give X XP per session and then a bonus for good play. Many set the XP amount so that you level every four to six sessions.

[Knaight]

It sounds reasonable enough to me. Granted, I'm fond of dropping experience entirely and just doing things on a per session basis.

[WickerNipple]

You're the DM, level em up at whatever rate you please.

[Longcat]

Milestones sure seems like a popular method. I'll stick to RAW XP for now, since that is fair. Arbitrary milestones, in my experience, tend to nerf leveling in a misguided attempt to forcefully keep players in a perceived sweet spot that may or may not exist.

[rlc]

aside from the edge cases that people will always try to find (like they did in this thread), it's the way things should be done anyway and i'm sure that the edge cases are why it's not official in the first place.

[Knaight]

Milestones sure seems like a popular method. I'll stick to RAW XP for now, since that is fair. Arbitrary milestones, in my experience, tend to nerf leveling in a misguided attempt to forcefully keep players in a perceived sweet spot that may or may not exist.

This is the nice part of a session methods. Once per every two sessions isn't arbitrary in implementation, and keeps it pretty fast.

[Yorrin]

Milestones sure seems like a popular method. I'll stick to RAW XP for now, since that is fair. Arbitrary milestones, in my experience, tend to nerf leveling in a misguided attempt to forcefully keep players in a perceived sweet spot that may or may not exist.

I actually use both- I plan the XP for a "dungeon" or similar series of encounters in such a way that at the end the players are going to level up. So 1 dungeon = 1 level. So far it's worked out great, and the players seem to enjoy the pace.

[WickerNipple]

I actually use both

Ya, Milestone is the same thing as planned xp if you're doing it right.

[Theodoxus]

Milestones sure seems like a popular method. I'll stick to RAW XP for now, since that is fair. Arbitrary milestones, in my experience, tend to nerf leveling in a misguided attempt to forcefully keep players in a perceived sweet spot that may or may not exist.

Currently, I'm using Pathfinder APs as my primary group is still reluctant to even try 5th - and I know the pacing of the books. Milestones keep the party at the sweet spot of the adventure path, not their own. To be honest, I'm getting quite annoyed at the massive jumps in power as the players gone from 5th to 8th level now. They trivialize the encounters as written. I've heavily modified the plot points and encounters just to keep it entertaining for us.

One reason I'm jonsing to try 5th is the bounded accuracy.