experience points for clerics turning undead

[Gaming-Poet]

Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)?

I have scoured my hard copy of the DMG and of the PB and scanned my PDFs of both, but I have been unable to find it. I recall seeing it long ago, but I can not recall what or where.

In many ways, for a cleric to destroy an undead by rolling a Dispel effect on a Turn Undead roll is no different from a fighter's destroying an undead with a critical success one-shot. So it makes sense that the experience points would be more than the DMG's bonus XP for doing something generically in keeping with being a "cleric" or a "priest", more likely something related to the experience value of the undead that had been successfully destroyed.

On the other hand, Turning Undead is not the same as slowly wearing down an undead monster with repeated bashing, slashing, and smashing.

So I ask for help with finding out the exact formula for determining experience points. 1/2 of regular value? 1/10 of regular value? Full value? What?

Thanks!

[Digitalelf]

Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)?

Table 34 in the DMG says that Priest's receive 100 XP for each successful use of a granted power. I personally give characters 1/2 XP (in addition to the 100 XP) for successfully turning/destroying undead...

[Gaming-Poet]

Table 34 in the DMG says that Priest's receive 100 XP for each successful use of a granted power.

True, but it goes against the overall D&D philosophy if a cleric who kills off (i.e. "dispels") a 6000 XP undead with a particularly successful Turn Undead earns only 100 experience points but that same cleric who ignores the Turn Undead ability and insteads kills off that same 6000 XP undead with a particularly effective critical success mace bash now earns 6000 experience points.

It doesn't fit the underlying system logic of proportionate rewards that the designers seemed to strive towards, however imperfectly.

So while I like your house rule, it seems certain that there must have been an official rule about granting our cleric or priest something better than 1.6% of the experience point earnings to be made by ignoring Turn Undead and relying only on bashing, slashing, and smashing -- or if not an official rule, a popular house rule so commonly known that I would remember it as virtually official for all purposes and play.

[Digitalelf]

it goes against the overall D&D philosophy if a cleric who kills off (i.e. "dispels") a 6000 XP undead with a particularly successful Turn Undead earns only 100 experience points but that same cleric who ignores the Turn Undead ability and insteads kills off that same 6000 XP undead with a particularly effective critical success mace bash now earns 6000 experience points.

I don't think it does, because if the cleric enters melee with the undead, he is using his hard won skill at arms to defeat the creature, but, if he uses his turning ability, he is "simply" calling upon the might and holy righteousness of his deity to channel through him in order to drive the foe away (or destroy it if he is high enough level to do so).

So I personally have no problem with the disparity at all, because in one instance, he is relying upon his own might, and in the other, he is relying upon someone else (his deity) to drive away or disperse the threat... So I think the cleric should (and rightly so) gain far more XP when he relies upon his own skill to deal with the undead menace instead of calling upon a higher power (his deity) to deal with the threat (which may not work in the first place)...

[Gaming-Poet]

So I think the cleric should (and rightly so) gain far more XP when he relies upon his own skill to deal with the undead menace instead of calling upon a higher power (his deity) to deal with the threat (which may not work in the first place)...

That's D&D 4th edition thinking, not AD&D.

For better or for worse, AD&D encouraged a very pragmatic approach to combat (though never so pragmatic as to avoid combat altogether). Beowulf may have chosen to fight Grendel naked for the glory in the classic poem, but AD&D would have treated him as an idiot for doing so when there is no mechanical advantage to it.

Furthermore, it goes against AD&D philosophy to unfairly penalize the cleric above and beyond all other character classes. Magic-users or wizards do not lose out on experience points when they use magic, so why should the cleric? If a fighter can use a sentient weapon to deal with the threat instead of relying "upon his own skill" -- or if a paladin can use a holy relic empowered by his god to deal with the threat instead of relying "upon his own skill" -- without being penalized, why should the Cleric alone have to lose out?

By AD&D thinking, if the best way to get experience points is to ignore the gods and attack with a mace instead, then no self-respecting cleric PC or priest PC would ever Turn Undead except as a last resort. Not ever. In that case, by AD&D thinking, one should retire the Cleric class altogether and play only multiclass magic-user/fighters -- and the fact that AD&D did not retire the Cleric or Priest seems ample proof that they did not intend for the character class to require his player to engage in unsound, impractical, self-sabotaging tactics such as Turning Undead for less than 1/10 the XP to be earned by using other tactics.

Maybe only those of us who can remember playing AD&D back before 4E came out would see this. I don't know.

But I know without question that there was a way back then to reward Clerics or Priests for using the Turn Undead ability in a fashion that did not grotesquely punish them.

I simply can not find it and can not remember whether it was official or instead one of the many house rules that so many people used that those rules might as well have been official.

[Gaming-Poet]

Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)?

Thanks!

[Lord Torath]

Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)?

Thanks!
Table 34 in the DMG says that Priest's receive 100 XP for each successful use of a granted power. This is on page 48 of the original printing (with a wizard, dragon, and magic swirl on the cover). Turning undead is considered a "granted power," so the priest receives 100 xp for using it.


Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)?

I have scoured my hard copy of the DMG and of the PB and scanned my PDFs of both, but I have been unable to find it. I recall seeing it long ago, but I can not recall what or where.
So I ask for help with finding out the exact formula for determining experience points. 1/2 of regular value? 1/10 of regular value? Full value? What?

Regarding the XP value of the undead defeated by the turning, I just add it to the general XP pot for the whole party. Just because Cleric did the actual Turning, doesn't mean Fighter wasn't there watching his back, Thief didn't alert the group to the undead, and Wizard wasn't ready with a spell in the event that the Turning attempt failed. I really don't recall seeing any kind of formula like you're describing. Maybe it was a house rule on someone's website? Maybe an obscure Dragon magazine?

[LibraryOgre]

For better or for worse, AD&D encouraged a very pragmatic approach to combat (though never so pragmatic as to avoid combat altogether). Beowulf may have chosen to fight Grendel naked for the glory in the classic poem, but AD&D would have treated him as an idiot for doing so when there is no mechanical advantage to it.

1e, since so much of your XP came from your cash, it was very much in keeping with the game to steal all the treasure you can with minimal risk (i.e. avoiding fighting).



I simply can not find it and can not remember whether it was official or instead one of the many house rules that so many people used that those rules might as well have been official.

I don't know of any place where it is spelled out. Personally, a cleric who turned or destroyed undead would get full XP (divided among the party he was with) and a bonus 100XP (for the cleric alone) for using a granted power. I agree that it makes no sense that he'd lose XP because everyone ran away... though I know there's a debate as to whether you give them full XP once if you make the zombies flee multiple times.

[Gaming-Poet]

Maybe it was a house rule on someone's website? Maybe an obscure Dragon magazine?

That's my fear.

Back when AD&D 2nd edition was the most recent form of Dungeons & Dragons and I had all of this memorized, I'd never thought I could forget such things even if I wanted to.

Now I'm trying to replicate the zeitgeist of gaming culture back during AD&D 2nd edition's heyday for all my friends, as I'm the only one who remembers any of what it was like gaming back then, and I find myself surprised at just how much the world and I have changed over the years since then (as well as surprised that it would surprise me).

Where did those twenty years go? :p


1e, since so much of your XP came from your cash, it was very much in keeping with the game to steal all the treasure you can with minimal risk (i.e. avoiding fighting).

Good point. I should have made it clear that I was referring to AD&D 2nd edition: My Bad!


Personally, a cleric who turned or destroyed undead would get full XP (divided among the party he was with) and a bonus 100XP (for the cleric alone) for using a granted power. I agree that it makes no sense that he'd lose XP because everyone ran away... though I know there's a debate as to whether you give them full XP once if you make the zombies flee multiple times.

That sounds like it!

Do you recall where you found this? It's not in the AD&D 2nd edition DMG. Or was this a popular interpretation of the DMG rather than a house rule or advice from a Dragon magazine article (or Shadis or one of the other gaming journals of the day)? Or was this one of the many times that AD&D 1st edition or 1e rules were ported over to AD&D 2nd ed?

So it was full XP, then. Hmmm, somehow I'd thought it was only a percentage of the full XP. I remember some of those debates you reference, though I do not recall how they turned out.

Despite the sophistication we have achieved in tabletop gaming theory, I still miss the excitement and the anything-goes creativity and freedom of the "salad days" of gaming, even though AD&D was during the final moments of those "salad days" and so I missed the very beginnings. One thing I enjoy about Giants in the Playground Forums (Fora?) is that I'm not the only one here who both recalls and sometimes misses those days.

[Digitalelf]

That's D&D 4th edition thinking, not AD&D.

I never played 4th edition, so I wouldn't know. :smalltongue:


Maybe only those of us who can remember playing AD&D back before 4E came out would see this. I don't know.

I dropped the whole d20 system entirely (e.g. 3rd edition and Pathfinder) and went back to playing 2nd edition AD&D a few years back; so my position comes not from nostalgia or memory, but from actual, current, game-play.

Not to say that my way is the right or only way, but what you ask for is simply not a part of the rules one way or the other. Ultimately, it is up to the individual DM to decide/determine whether or not a cleric or paladin receives XP for turning undead.


But I know without question that there was a way back then to reward Clerics or Priests for using the Turn Undead ability in a fashion that did not grotesquely punish them.

If there was, it was in one of the periodicals/magazines of the time.

And personally, I don't see it as punishment...

YMMV...

If you care to look, there were several discussions on this over at the forums on "Dragonsfoot" and "The Piazza":

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=57634

http://www.dragonsfoot.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57423

http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=13061

As you can see, this has always been an individual DM determination for these older editions of D&D (as the first link is a thread concerning the topic for original D&D, the 2nd link is a thread concerning the topic for 1e, and the last link is from a thread concerning the topic for 2e).

[Gaming-Poet]

Thank you both for your help in this matter.

Not everyone in Giants of the Playground is helpful, of course, but the number of people who are helpful here has always been greater than it has been on any other gaming forum I have known. That is why I prefer to post my queries here (when I post them anywhere at all).

[Digitalelf]

I'm really not interested in how a 2015 player would want to adjudicate AD&D 2nd edition, but thank you for playing.

I'm interested in recalling how we handled the issue back when AD&D 2nd edition was the current game, before the World of Darkness line even existed, before there was World of Warcraft or Halo or Portal, during a different zeitgeist and a somewhat different cultural era.

Mark Hall's answers were useful. Yours have not been, particularly since they seem to have no function except to dispute the useful answers he had posted and to dispute the answers I had posted in the post directly before yours.



I am asking Giants in the Playground. If I had wanted to ask Dragonsfoot and The Piazza, I would have posted there; it is not your place nor your privilege to try to show me the door and boot me onto another forum.

Why all the hostility and snark??

I had hoped that the examples given in those other threads from Dragonsfoot and The Piazza would have illustrated that what you are asking is totally up to the DM, because the rules are deafeningly silent regarding the matter.

And linking other web sites and forums is not showing someone the door, nor booting someone... :smallconfused:

I have posted in good faith and have approached the answer with how I game, which, by the way, is pretty much the same as I did back in the day (i.e. since 1981 when I started gaming). I even DMed 3rd edition and Pathfinder with the same approach as that of how I DMed 1e and 2e, which is contrary in many ways to how those systems were written. So, how I run 2e now is the same as I did back in 1989-2000 (i.e. the entire run of 2e).

Offering an opinion contrary to yours or anyone else’s for that matter, is not "disputing" anything or anyone, it is simply offering up a differing opinion on the matter, which in my case, was my own opinion as to how and why I see the rules the way that I do.

But there are many ways to role-play; I for example, prefer (and always have) to run heavy story-based games where combat does not play such a prominent part, so to me, turning undead is a quick and dirty way to get past, not plow through, a potentially deadly encounter; so basically, I see it as a short-cut, therefore, I only give 1/2 XP plus the 100 XP for successfully using a class ability.

If you see it differently, that's fine, but voicing my opinion on how I see it (and why) in no way disputes yours or anyone else’s. And if you do not find such contrary opinions to be "helpful" then that is okay too... What is not okay is to say "but thanks for playing" as that is just plain rude and uncalled for...

[Gaming-Poet]

Offering an opinion contrary to yours or anyone else’s for that matter, is not "disputing" anything or anyone, it is simply offering up a differing opinion on the matter, which in my case, was my own opinion as to how and why I see the rules the way that I do.

I have a great deal of respect for other opinions, including those which differ from mine (so long as they are rational or are clearly owned by the person).

I enjoy it a great deal when people share with me their other opinions.

However, this was never an opinion thread but exclusively a fact thread.

My exact original request was "Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)?"

The fact that this formula exists is not a matter of opinion. It exists. I know because I have seen it and because I have known others who have seen it. Its existence is no more a matter of opinion than the existence of the U.S. Constitution, or gravity, or the color red.

To claim it does not exist therefore makes no more sense than denying the existence of the color red -- unless one is instead accusing me of lying about having seen it and also lying in my claim that others have seen it.

It may have been in the DMG. It may have been elsewhere (such as Dragon magazine) as I mention in the very first words of this post. But it exists.

And the one and only thing I asked was for help finding it and/or reproducing it, neither of which has anything whatsoever to do with mere opinion. Similarly, I would never start up a thread asking for people's opinions about whether there is such a thing as gravity. (Well, I might in a forum about complex theories of physics, perhaps in a highly sophisticated discussion on superstring theory, but that's a fairly specific circumstance.)

Instead of responding to this request for factual data, you accused me not once but twice of being a liar.


Why all the hostility and snark??

That was my thought when I read your first post, then your second, then your third. By the time of your third post, my patience was worn through (and I can handle hundreds of confused first year students on the first day of class without losing my patience, so it takes a lot to wear my patience through).

Even then, I quickly decided that repaying you snark for snark was uncalled for, but I was unable to edit it out in time, which I regret. You called me a liar and nearly capsized the thread, but I still should not have repaid snark for snark.

No one likes being called a liar. No one wants to post a request, "Can anyone help me recall the name of the capital of the state of California" only to have you silence discussion with "There is no such state as California -- in my opinion."

To be candid, once you took on the thread, I expected no one else to post anything. I thought you had sabotaged my best hope for getting an answer.


I had hoped that the examples given in those other threads from Dragonsfoot and The Piazza would have illustrated that what you are asking is totally up to the DM, because the rules are deafeningly silent regarding the matter.

Another example of your snark: I pointed out in the very first post that the rules were *never* silent on this matter back in the late 1980s or 1990s (unlike today, metatext such as Dragon articles and such were considered no less valid than the rulesbook themselves back when AD&D 2nd edition was the reigning game system) so that no one would make the allegation as well, and after ignoring what I wrote, you have outright accused me of lying -- and now you have done so again.

Another example of your snark: I made it clear from the start that I was fully aware of the passage about 100 XP for Turning Undead, and you immediately pointed it out to me as though I were too stupid to know about it. Such a show of bad faith in the OP can not be justified, not after the OP has gone out of his/her way to make it clear from the start that this question comes from someone who is quite familiar with the system and simply can not recall something.


And linking other web sites and forums is not showing someone the door, nor booting someone

Beginning with the snide "If you care to look", again suggesting I lack the integrity or intelligence to have taken such precautions already. Additionally, you wrote it almost directly after I had written "One thing I enjoy about Giants in the Playground Forums (Fora?) is that I'm not the only one here who both recalls and sometimes misses those days" as though it were intended as rebuttal to my statement about enjoying this forum.


I have posted in good faith

Again, that was my thought, so I could not understand why my posting in good faith received such snark from you.

I can try to believe that somehow you had not intended your words to be interpretted as snark. But I can imagine no way you can justify your calling me a liar not once but twice.

[Digitalelf]

...Again, that was my thought, so I could not understand why my posting in good faith received such snark from you.

Wow... Just wow...

The written word is often times misrepresented from actual verbal to verbal communication, and it seems this is the case here.

When I said, "if you care to look", it was simply that... Some people do not like to click on links to long threads (either on the same site or on another web site). So, I honestly did mean, that if you cared to do so, here are some similar arguments as to whether or not clerics and paladins receive XP for turning undead (and it is worth noting that no one in any of those other threads sited anything in the rules, official or not as to clerics and paladins receiving XP for turning).

I never called or inferred that you were a lier. But since we're on the subject of memory, in this very forum I posted a question a few days ago asking what issue of Dragon Magazine a particular article was in... turned out, it was not in an issue of Dragon Magazine at all, but instead it was a homebrew rule some fellow gamer uploaded to TSR's site on AOL 18 years ago; and I could have sworn (and did) that it was indeed, without a doubt an article in Dragon Magazine... My point is, that our memories are more often than not; flawed in some minor way or another (especially as more and more time passes us by – like 18 to 20 years).

I believe whole-heartedly, without a doubt, that you read what you say you did, and that you know of others who have as well.

That said...

Maybe you read it in Dragon, maybe somewhere else. But I am telling you, such a rule is not in the DMG, PHB, The Complete Priest's Handbook, or any of the "Player's Options" books. I even checked the DragonDex (an online Dragon Magazine Index) to no avail (which doesn't mean such an article on turning undead is not in Dragon Magazine, it's just not so easily found).

And as for not wanting any opinions... Well, everyone that has responded to this thread has told you how they personally do it:

Mark Hall: "Personally, a cleric who turned or destroyed undead would get full XP (divided among the party he was with) and a bonus 100XP (for the cleric alone) for using a granted power. "

Lord Torath: "I just add it to the general XP pot for the whole party"

Me: "I personally give characters 1/2 XP (in addition to the 100 XP) for successfully turning/destroying undead..."

All 100% pure opinion...

And neither one of us I might add were able to offer up a page number or concrete source for the formula in which you seek...

Which made me think that since the other two opinions matched up with your thinking, and mine did not, that you took what they said as gospel, and what I said as confrontational...

BUT...

Like I said, this whole exchange has been via text, so I can't read your body language and facial expressions; but correctly or incorrectly, that is how I took the things you said.

Now, what you are looking for could be in a setting specific sourcebook, such as the Forgotten Realms "Faiths & Avatars", but I don't have that book in front of me at the moment, or in an optional non-setting specific sourcebook.

I am not saying this to brag (honestly, I am not), but I am missing VERY few products published for 1st and 2nd editions. And I really do not recall a rule like what you are looking for in any TSR published source anywhere; not even for Original, or Basic D&D.

And yes, I fully admit that my memory could be flawed concerning that last statement, since there remains a small handful of those books in which I have not yet had a reason to read all over again (e.g. they are not pertinent to my current campaign)... :smallbiggrin:

[Gaming-Poet]

When I said, "if you care to look", it was simply that... Some people do not like to click on links to long threads (either on the same site or on another web site).

Oh? I will take your word on this and try to remember it in the future.

My apologies for my error. I absolutely despise making such mistakes, so you can rest assured I will not permit myself to forget this.

In that case, thank you for posting the links.


My point is, that our memories are more often than not; flawed in some minor way or another (especially as more and more time passes us by – like 18 to 20 years).

In my career, I do not have the luxury of a faulty memory. So I never post anything, ever, unless I would be willing to testify to it under oath in a court of law. Sometimes it may take me two or more hours working on a single post while I doublecheck everything I write -- because that is what a good person would do, IMHO. That is why I specifically pointed out that the item might have been someplace other than the DMG without specifying where -- as an acknowledgement so that I could avoid such error.


I believe whole-heartedly, without a doubt, that you read what you say you did, and that you know of others who have as well

Good.


But I am telling you, such a rule is not in the DMG, PHB, The Complete Priest's Handbook, or any of the "Player's Options" books.

Yes, I know that. I even acknowledged it in the very first post.

Don't you see how snarky it is for you to tell me something I have already stated I know -- as though you consider me too stupid to know it despite my stating from the start that I knew it?


Which made me think that since the other two opinions matched up with your thinking, and mine did not, that you took what they said as gospel, and what I said as confrontational...

Their presentation of their opinions seemed to contribute to my hope of getting a concrete answer.

Your presentation of your opinion seemed intended only to silence any future posters who might have a concrete answer to offer by definitively stating that such a concrete answer did not exist -- to sabotage the thread and delegitimize anything I chose to write, in other words.

You began by pointing out to me as though I were an idiot something I had already acknowledged knowing in your first post, and then by your words in your second post you seemed to treat religious fidelity as a lazy thing to be punished while the fighter deserves praise for not being a cleric -- which not only undercuts the basic idea of the cleric class but again delegitimizes my initial post.

It was the context of your delegitimization of my post -- your appearing to call me a liar -- that made your opinion come across as snarky while their opinions came across as informed speculations and not mere opinion.


I am not saying this to brag (honestly, I am not), but I am missing VERY few products published for 1st and 2nd editions.

Do you also own every copy of every gaming magazine that was considered canonical or its equivalent at the time, including Dragon, Dungeon, Shadis, White Dwarf, Space Gamer, Fantasy Gamer, Alarums & Excursions, Different Worlds, and possibly Pyramid and InQuest?

Because I can prove that, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, articles in most of these magazines were treated as coequal to the rules in the DMG and PB et al. by the American gaming community as a whole (as authorized options not as mandates), a situation which has not been true among gamers since the popularization of the Internet for various reasons about which there is not yet a consensus.

Why does that matter?

Well, if you are pointing out that you have this background to delegitimize me and prove me a liar, I will have to accept your right to our assessment if you have all of these.

But if I am correct in my suspicion that you are pointing out that you have as much as you have only to indicate that your opinion is an educated one, then in that case, I will concede the point.

However, while I will concede that point and while I will accept that you had not intended to write in a fashion which appears to call me a liar, I ask that you recognize how snarky it was for you to tell me something I have already stated I know as though you consider me too stupid to know it despite my stating from the start that I knew it and that you recognize how your declaring that what I know exists does not exist is both snark and delegitimizing as well as potentially implying that I am a liar.

[Digitalelf]

tell me something I have already stated I know as though you consider me too stupid to know it despite my stating from the start that I knew it

I thank you for your apology. :smallsmile:

In my first post, I simply pointed you to the table in which listed the individual XP awards; not because I thought you were stupid, but because it is very easy to miss something like that, especially because that particular table changed slightly with each of the printings of the DMG (as the errata changed).

I also pointed that table out, because it is the ONLY place within the published rules (official or unofficial) that I can think of that lists anything pertaining to a cleric gaining XP for using their class abilities.

As for what periodicals I own (for what's it's worth), I have every issue of Dragon in physical form from the very last one published, going back to issue #50, but since I own the old archive CD -ROM, I have access to every single issue, plus the 7 issues of the Strategic Review. I also own every issue of Dungeon Magazine (save a total of 5 issues - 3 from the very early issues in the single digits and 2 from the late 3rd edition Paizo issues). As for the others you listed, no, I have very few issues of those magazines.

As for that stuff being considered equal to the rules published by TSR, well, any evidence you can produce is purely anecdotal at best, because it was rarely considered "equal" in my circles back in the day (which is also purely anecdotal), so "American gaming community as a whole" is far too broad of a brush to be painting with... But that's neither here nor there.

And I did not accuse you of a faulty memory, but human nature is what it is, and it can be proven that our memories are not as exact as we'd like or hope or even need them to be, especially, like I said, after 20 years or so; but again, that's neither here nor there...

But going back to your other points, all I can say, is that my intent with every post, was simply to provide you with what I do in my games because I don't know of any formula that spells out giving XP to clerics or paladins for turning undead other than that table. I further informed you as to why I give the amount of XP that I do.

Which is: I don't see the cleric or paladins turning ability as a combat ability. I see it as a way to quickly end or size down a potentially deadly threat, which in my eyes (and backed up by the rules) makes the cleric or paladin himself nothing more than a direct conduit of the physical manifestation of the deity's power channeled though him; which is not the same thing as casting a spell IMO...

And the great thing about all of that is that there are no concrete rules within the books that contradict or support that way of doing it!

Why and how is any of that pertinent to your question?

You and everyone you know (and/or know of) may treat periodicals and maybe even other third party stuff of the time as equal to what's in the books (as far as blurring the lines of what is "official" and what is not), I don't, nor do those that I know (and/or know of). I may and have made use of these things however, both presently and in the past, but I do make a distinction to what is and what is not "official" content (and I always have, especially after reading what Gary Gygax said on many different occasions that the only content in Dragon Magazine that is "official" were his "From the Sorcerer’s Scroll" articles), so my approach to your question was colored by that simple fact... But then I make no bones about being a "Card carrying, 'You kids get off my lawn!' Grognard."

So, I have answered your question (obviously toward my own bias) to the best of my ability, and unfortunately, I do not possess the information that you specifically asked for in your OP. I apologize for being unclear and I meant no malice nor did I intend to belittle you at any point.

Good luck in finding what you seek, and good gaming to you. :smallcool:

[FeetUpsideDown]

Wow, guys, just wow.

[satorian]

Yeah, seriously, wow.

To the point: if you are playing 2e in such a way that the DM refuses to interpret the rules as written for his own uses, and to extrapolate from their penumbra, you are not playing the game as it was intended. That doesn't mean you can't play that way, but the 2e DMG specifically suggests that DMs do so. There is not a rule for everything, but more importantly, there is not supposed to be a rule for everything. E.g., there's no rule for a fighter climbing the scaly back of a dragon while it flies. Does that mean he can't do so? Of course not! DMs are supposed to eyeball it and say, um, DEX check, er, at a -4. Roll!

In this case, there is no rule. There is no rule, as I see it, because destroying undead = destroying undead, and experience points should be awarded in full no matter how. If a thief uses his class skills to sneakily climb up a wall and set off a trap from a distance to blow up a mummy, full XP (and maybe a bonus for ingenuity). If a cleric turns undead to dust, full XP. If a wizard drops a wall of iron on a ghast, full XP. But that's me. Others have valid views as well.

The validity of interpreted rules in 2e is in part because in this case there is no black letter rule, and in part because there is express dicta calling on DMs to alter the rules as they see fit. As such, it is more RAW (and RAI) to ignore black letter rules than to require them.

[Gaming-Poet]

Wow, guys, just wow.

You will find him doing this to me in many threads.

It may seem harmless to you in just one thread, but taken in context as a whole, it becomes tiresome.

[Digitalelf]

if you are playing 2e in such a way that the DM refuses to interpret the rules as written for his own uses, and to extrapolate from their penumbra, you are not playing the game as it was intended. That doesn't mean you can't play that way, but the 2e DMG specifically suggests that DMs do so.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.

Now don't misunderstand me; I know that you're just voicing your own opinion, and I'm not saying that you are wrong. I just don't necessarily agree with it.

Let me ask you this...

Of course one can very easily just play the game by the book without altering a single rule, but that does not necessarily mean that the game is being played "as intended", so...

How can there be a way for the game to be specifically played "as intended" when the DM is called out by the very rules of the game itself to alter those said rules however they see fit?

[satorian]

Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate.
Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each
piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you
do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete.

That's from 2e DMG. It's not my opinion. In 2e, RAW is that there is no RAW.

[Digitalelf]

In 2e, RAW is that there is no RAW.

I guess I misinterpreted you original post when you had said:

"if you are playing 2e in such a way that the DM refuses to interpret the rules as written... ...you are not playing the game as it was intended."

Which is the reason that I asked you:

"How can there be a way for the game to be specifically played "as intended" when the DM is called out by the very rules of the game itself to alter those said rules however they see fit?"

If that's the case, then I apologize for any confusion... :smallbiggrin:

[satorian]

Come on, dude. By playing semantics with natural language, you are engaging in the purest form of sophistry -- and by the way you do so, it seems you know that.the game made its definitions clear. Choose to deny them if you will, but to do so is do drive headlong into paradox, and to thus put your position in a reductio ad absurdum. Sure you don't want to do that.

[Digitalelf]

the game made its definitions clear. Choose to deny them if you will

I play 2nd edition AD&D, and indeed, I have changed the rules to suite my DMing needs since day one in 1989

Again, I MISTAKENLY thought that you were saying that to play the game as it was intended, was to play the game without changing a single rule, when that was clearly not what you were saying...

I just simply read your post wrong... Oopsies... Sorry... My bad! Mistakes happen! No harm, no foul. :smallwink:

[satorian]

Ah, sorry, I was reading too far into what your saying. I thought you were turning my words on their head. Looks like it was I who was doing that to you. Oops!

[Digitalelf]

Ah, sorry, I was reading too far into what your saying. I thought you were turning my words on their head. Looks like it was I who was doing that to you. Oops!

No worries. :smallbiggrin:

[obryn]

That's D&D 4th edition thinking, not AD&D.

I never played 4th edition, so I wouldn't know. :smalltongue:
It's an outright fabrication. 4e is really specific that no matter how you overcome an obstacle, you get the XP for it. Talking your way around it, killing it, whatever.

IMO, in AD&D of any edition, there's also no reason whatsoever to withhold XP from a Cleric just because they handled an encounter in the smartest way possible.

[MeeposFire]

IN games I ran in this case a cleric who destroys undead with a successful turn check would get an individual XP bonus for a successful use of an ability.

In addition the party gains 6000XP to share as is normal for combat XP.

You always give the party the combat XP for defeating foes regardless of how. The XP you get from special abilities and the like are in addition rather than being instead of the the combat XP.