How much xp for escaping captivity?

[gogogome]

PCs got party wiped by 8 hobgoblins (their fault for being as loud as possible). 2 of the 4 died, 2 of the 4 were saved from bleeding out by the hobgoblins and now are caged. Eventually the 2 escaped. One was a wizard with abrupt jaunt. He used it to get out of the cell and then used floating disc to silently carry both of them out while everyone was sleeping. They snuck past all 8 hobgoblins.

Do the survivors get the full 8 hobgoblin xp?

Argument 1: No. They lost the challenge and just ran away to avoid death.
Argument 2: Yes. They lost the 1st challenge, but escaping is an entirely new challenge and they stealthily overcame it. No different than the sneaking past minotaur example presented in the DMG.
Argument 3: Yes but only partial because they had the advantage of sleep. Counter argument: Circumstantial bonuses shouldn't matter, just like breaking the bridge the BBEG is standing on and killing him doesn't reduce XP reward.

For cases 2 & 3, if the survivors return with another party and wipe out the hobgoblins, do they get full XP reward or no XP reward since they already "overcame" them once?

[Curmudgeon]

Did the Wizard cast Silence to walk ahead of the Floating Disk, or did he make Move Silently checks? The former would be less challenging, so I'd give more XP for the latter approach.

The survivors didn't overcome the original challenge; they failed at that. They succeeded on a new, easier challenge. The original challenge still exists. If the survivors are part of a new group to overcome this original challenge they should be rewarded as usual.

[nijineko]

if i may be so bold, the answer to both is yes.

they get full xp for the first encounter, and they get full xp for the second encounter.

reasons: as defined, xp is not awarded for "winning", a common fallacy and mistake many (myself included) have made over the years. xp is awarded for surviving whatever the encounter is, and i say survive because iirc, there is a stipulation about not getting xp if you die during the encounter. i seem to recall reading an example of a trap where it doesn't matter if they disarm the trap, dodge the trap, or take the damage and keep going, they get the xp. (that also assumes that they encounter the trap - no encounter, no xp.)

therefore, whomever survived the encounter gets full xp for that encounter, whether they beat the hobs in combat, barely got away with their lives, or failed miserably and were captured.

next encounter is for escaping captivity, and since they got away, they should technically get full xp for that too.


i suppose you could claim that the characters are learning something, regardless of the outcome (short of death), ergo they get xp so long as they survive.... but i don't think that there it actually says that's why they get the xp, it just says you get it for surviving whatever the encounter was.

[Curmudgeon]

but i don't think that there it actually says that's why they get the xp, it just says you get it for surviving whatever the encounter was.
The rules say you get XP for overcoming a challenge, not simply for surviving. Getting captured didn't overcome the original challenge; instead, it created a new challenge which the surviving PCs overcame.

[DrMotives]

The rules say you get XP for overcoming a challenge, not simply for surviving. Getting captured didn't overcome the original challenge; instead, it created a new challenge which the surviving PCs overcame.

I agree with this. You should figure out the EL of the cage & sneaking past the guards to freedom, this is a skill challenge encounter that the 2 surviving PCs overcame. Give none for getting stomped in the earlier combat with the hobgoblins.

[nyjastul69]

The players shouldn't receive xp for having been defeated in the original battle. The esacape seems like it was a trivial challenge. I would award some xp, but certainly not a full share. Did you allow the caster to ride his own disk?

[gogogome]

The players shouldn't receive xp for having been defeated in the original battle. The esacape seems like it was a trivial challenge. I would award some xp, but certainly not a full share. Did you allow the caster to ride his own disk?

Yes, I allow people to ride their own discs. I was convinced that they were silent even during movement because spells like mage armor and shield do not reveal the wearer if he is invisible, therefore force magic has no sound.

The thing is though, the PCs are arguing that it was trivial because it was a wizard.

A fighter cannot have escaped.
A paladin cannot have escaped.
A rogue can escaped.
A wizard cannot have escaped.
A wizard with Abrupt Jaunt can escape.

They are arguing just because a class has an advantage in this situation should not dock XP for them. They brought up an analogy of delivering cargo up high into a mountain village.

A fighter would climb the mountain with cargo in hand, taking days.
A wizard would just teleport or fly over.
A druid would wild shape and fly over.

but all three would get the same XP.

[Nifft]

Hmm.

IMHO part of the reward proportion determination should depend on what the PCs were trying to do -- what their actual goal was.

If their goal was to remove the hobgoblins from the region, and what they did was get captured by the hobgoblins and escape, then I don't think full XP is in order.

If their goal was to travel from A to B, and escaping the hobgoblins allowed them to travel from A to B, then more XP seems reasonable.


For cases 2 & 3, if the survivors return with another party and wipe out the hobgoblins, do they get full XP reward or no XP reward since they already "overcame" them once?

This question seems to say: "Hobgoblins are bags of XP. You pop the bag and the XP spills out."

That's not how XP works in my opinion.

Can you learn from an instructor even though you already sparred once?

In my opinion, yes. You can still learn by sparring with the same person twice.

[Vaz]

An adventuring party has resources. In each say it is presumed that they have an allotment of resources which they can spend. This is time, actions, limited use items (whether it is X/day or number of charges), HP (or in higher level, even Lives), Money, and the skills/feats invested inti a build.

To use the analogy of the party going up the hill, if the fighter walked, and had to make death defying challenges like leaping a cavern, using the Jump Check of +17 from having invested his skills to make a DC30 check, Survival Skill to resist the freezing temperatures and climb checks to scale the summit, you get experience for those.

A wizard teleporting up that mountain takes an action, rather than several days, and avoids the hazards by expending a single use of a spell slot of which he has around 10 or so remaining of a higher level.

A druid has 1 3-5/day ability used up dependent on level, and possibly a spell slot to resist the cold, and several hours.

A rogue UMDing a scroll of teleport is the same as a wizard, but there is a monetary cost added in, while a Bard paying an Airship Captain to carry him to the top is going to be slower than flying like an eagle, but may require some diplomacy to convince him to travel to the mountain because there is bad weather predicted.

A Barbarian in such a circumstance may have aided the Airship Captain in a street fight which was the cover for an assassination attempt on his life, and is owdd a favour. The barbarian may exchange that favour for flying to the top of the mountain and braving the weather regardless.

All of these get the same result, but few truly challenged the party. A Bard with a diplomacy score capable of instantly making the required check is not going to be challenged as much as one who needs to roll a 20 to convince said captain. While it has the same effect as even the Barbarian using his favour, the barbarian has given away a 1/campaign resource in exchange for the ability to fly, while the Bard made a diplomacy check, that given enough time he would have eventually have made the check. The rogue got the same effect as the wizard but the Xthousands spent on a scroll (either bought or as a portion of the WBL) means that more was spent on achieving that result.

You get EXPERIENCE for overcoming CHALLENGES. If you aren't challenged, then it is not apprpriate for you, and returns less XP. If you are overcoming a challenge with a level 2 spell as a 20th level wizard, then a) fair game, but b) it means that an ECL 3 wizard could achieve the same result, and get experience as such.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, I allow people to ride their own discs. I was convinced that they were silent even during movement because spells like mage armor and shield do not reveal the wearer if he is invisible, therefore force magic has no sound.
Because you made a single spell have capabilities far beyond what is listed, you made the solution trivial. Consequently, there shouldn't be any XP awarded because the PCs didn't solve this problem; the DM did.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

In my opinion, little or no xp should be awarded for the first encounter which was soundly lost. Surviving =/= Overcoming. I'm all for giving full xp for novel solutions and think that doing otherwise is railroading players into boring solutions and playing "what is the DM thinking" for xp, however awarding xp for flat out losses opens some doors you don't want to open.

As has been suggested by several others, the escape should be a separate challenge that isn't necessarily the same CR as 8 hobgoblins. Specifically I would have based it off the DC of the lock and the listen check they had to contend with. There probably alternatives; waking one guard and using Bluff or Diplomacy, Escape Artist, a Strength check to break the cage followed by some assorted checks to flee.

As for the Wizard trivializing it with spells my response is "and?". Penalizing characters for being good at things or rewarding them for being bad at things just doesn't work. Do you give Wizards extra xp if they decide to stab a goblin instead of casting a spell and one shot them with a crit? Doing things efficiently should be rewarded. If the whole group is too strong, I can support some blanket nerfs to xp to keep progression at a reasonable pace while throwing challenges that are challenging at them.

[Barstro]

The short answer, in one sense, is that the PCs should be where the DM wants them to be. If you think they need to be next level before they hit the next dungeon, then you should plan accordingly. This is whether or not they get xp for the task(s) in question. The DM always has the ability to add/remove encounters as required.

If the players are whining that they "deserve" xp, give it to them and just remove another encounter.

Longer, more thought provoking, and IMO "better" answer; give xp based on what actually happened. Managing to luckily cause a landslide to stop an army from invading and killing 20 enemies in the process really shouldn't (again, IMO) grant anywhere near the same experience as standing face to face and fighting. Unless, of course, this is an engineering RPG and lots of work went into finding just the right rock to remove to start the landslide (sounds like a boring RPG to me; I'll stick to magic and swords).

The PCs didn't "learn" anything in losing to the hobgoblins; so, no xp. The PCs did manage to learn and execute a plan in the escape; so, earned xp. The amount of xp earned really comes down to how difficult it was. Default seems to be that it's the same as winning the original fight (or close to it). But I think there's a difference between getting captured by some flunkies and thrown in the lowest dungeon of BBEG (get a lot more for their fortunate break) vs getting captured by some really tough fighters and then just being told to stand in the corner while the enemies leave (a lot less xp).

[Nifft]

The PCs didn't "learn" anything in losing to the hobgoblins; so, no xp.

It's interesting to think about XP as "learning".

XP are both a reward for solving the puzzle, and XP are a way to model learning from experience.

As a reward mechanism, they're the cookie you get when you win.

As a way to model learning from experience, they really ought to accrue from failures as much as successes, since IRL failure often teaches as much -- or more -- than success. A perfectly successful party which wins using the same tactics every time seems like they're learning less than a party who has to vary tactics because their favorite ones don't always work.

[Strigon]

Keep in mind this wasn't just a challenge, but a huge risk.
A 4-member party got massacred by these hobgoblins; if they got caught, there lives would be over. That has to carry some weight, too.

And, as for the XP for being challenged; I vote no. Suppose we go back to that mountain example. Suppose also that they had a time limit - one day. Now suppose that, rather than comparing a party full of adventurers, we compare wizards A and B.

Wizard A knows his spells very well. He knows how best to use them. He always prepares a Teleport in his list of spells for the day, so when he is made to climb the mountain within a day, he can simply use his Teleport to do it, and the encounter is over.

Wizard B, however, is not very optimized. He has a lot of buffing spells, and lots of blasting, but no Teleport. He has to burn through several buffs to make him pass the skill checks necessary to climb a mountain in one day.
Would you then argue that Wizard B gets more xp? Because if so, you are then punishing Wizard A for playing the game well.

I would argue that xp should be based on:
Risk, and how challenging the encounter is, compared to the level of the party.
Docking xp for playing well, or having an encounter that suits your skills, seems ludicrous to me. And then you might get into weird positions; i.e., a party with a great rogue might decide that, rather than sneaking into the BBEG's lair and disabling the alarm, they should run in and slaughter everyone, since they would get less xp for having a rogue in the party.

[Barstro]

since IRL failure often teaches as much -- or more -- than success.

Exactly. And they proved that they learned something by escaping. No XP for the failure, but they get XP for the later victory. NOTE: they would not have had a chance for the "escape" XP if they had won the fight. Again, I'd make that XP based on how difficult the escape was.


Keep in mind this wasn't just a challenge, but a huge risk.
A 4-member party got massacred by these hobgoblins; if they got caught, there lives would be over. That has to carry some weight, too.

And, as for the XP for being challenged; I vote no. Suppose we go back to that mountain example. Suppose also that they had a time limit - one day. Now suppose that, rather than comparing a party full of adventurers, we compare wizards A and B.

...
I would argue that xp should be based on:
Risk, and how challenging the encounter is, compared to the level of the party.
Docking xp for playing well, or having an encounter that suits your skills, seems ludicrous to me. And then you might get into weird positions; i.e., a party with a great rogue might decide that, rather than sneaking into the BBEG's lair and disabling the alarm, they should run in and slaughter everyone, since they would get less xp for having a rogue in the party.

I'd argue that you disagree with me only in the sense that you are using different definitions for the same words, or misinterpreting what I said.
My issue with the mountain isn't that it was a valid solution and does not deserve XP. In my example, it was someone who luckily knocked out the correct stone and this happened. As such, I felt that full XP for killing 20 people was unjustified. I did NOT say that no XP should be allowed. The PC should certainly get more XP than just going outside and picking up a rock (0), but less than a fighter would for single-handedly defeating 20 people of a higher level than him (50,000 maybe).

In your example of the Mountain Puzzle (in which you changed the parameters), I agree that finding a solution is worth something. And I'd argue that it is "solving the puzzle of the mountain" that is worth the XP (however it is done). A and B get the same. Again, neither of them were shepherds up there with a flock who accidentally knocked the important rock out with their crook; they had a plan and saw it through.

I do not condone docking XP for playing well. I do condone withholding it instead of handing out like candy on Halloween just because the PCs decide to forgo all logic and enter into fights above their levels and hope that DM fiat saves them.

If the PCs try to do something, but fail, they get nothing (or a reduced amount on what went well).
If the PCs' failures lead to something else, then they get XP for that something else.
If the PCs have a plan that involves intentional failure (lead the bad guys away from the church, then run for their lives) then they get XP in some form.
But PCs shouldn't get XP based simply on body count. (Defeating 20 guys in a fight is worth twice as much as defeating 10 guys and worth more XP. Causing an avalanche to kill 200 guys takes the same amount of thought and work as it would to kill 50 guys and should generally not earn more XP.)
In the same vein, avoiding an encounter may be worth XP if there is a good reason to do so.

As for your Rogue example. My party would (and did) sneak into the BBEG's lair, slaughter him, take his items, and THEN kill everyone else using better weapons and equipment for easier fights. But, were I DM, I'd just give the XP anyway for avoiding useless fights and getting 5#!+ done.

[Barstro]

Argument 2: Yes. They lost the 1st challenge, but escaping is an entirely new challenge and they stealthily overcame it. No different than the sneaking past minotaur example presented in the DMG.
Argument 3: Yes but only partial because they had the advantage of sleep. Counter argument: Circumstantial bonuses shouldn't matter, just like breaking the bridge the BBEG is standing on and killing him doesn't reduce XP reward.

For cases 2 & 3, if the survivors return with another party and wipe out the hobgoblins, do they get full XP reward or no XP reward since they already "overcame" them once?

I missed this last line before.
If you really want to base XP on encounters (as opposed to handing out levels when you feel it has been earned) then I would go with #2 and give XP for the new fight as well. After all, it is no different than escaping, leaving the country, and fighting some other random group of hobgoblins.

#3 (about the bridge) is interesting because it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Was this the village drunk who happened to pass out and damage the already old bridge? Should he suddenly become a level three wizard because he gained a bunch of XP? Or was it the party's cleric who blinded the BBEG and the fighter who bullrushed him onto the bridge and the rogue who finished cutting the ropes he had strategically scored the night before? Again, I don't think the ends should count as much as the means.

But most battles are straight up fights that are won by the PCs, so it's just easier to use standard XP as the guideline.

[Andreaz]

Did the Wizard cast Silence to walk ahead of the Floating Disk, or did he make Move Silently checks? The former would be less challenging, so I'd give more XP for the latter approach.
Both are pcs using their resources to overcome a challenge. I fail to see why one wouldn't be rewarded like the other.


The survivors didn't overcome the original challenge; they failed at that. They succeeded on a new, easier challenge. The original challenge still exists. If the survivors are part of a new group to overcome this original challenge they should be rewarded as usual.
This is true. The new challenge (sneak past them) was easier. It's the same idea of good or bad terrain adjusting the cr.
And fighting the same enemy over different scenes should reward every time... Isn't that one of the staples of a nemesis?
Of course, if the players eventually get too ahead of such enemy, they cease to be a challenge..or their xp contribution becomes to small to matter.

[Red Fel]

They are arguing just because a class has an advantage in this situation should not dock XP for them. They brought up an analogy of delivering cargo up high into a mountain village.

A fighter would climb the mountain with cargo in hand, taking days.
A wizard would just teleport or fly over.
A druid would wild shape and fly over.

but all three would get the same XP.

I agree with the players. Look, a well-designed Wizard can trivialize almost any encounter. Even a poorly-designed Wizard can do so. There's the old chestnut about Shivering Touch turning a Dragon - what should be an awesome, epic encounter - into a bloody joke. And it's true. But if your Wizard beats the Dragon with Invisibility and Shivering Touch, do you give the party partial xp?

No. You give them full xp for the challenge they overcame, despite the fact that one class made it easy.

In this case, they lost to the hobs. Fine. I won't argue that point. But they did escape from a cage, which is worth something. Whatever it's worth, they receive it fully. They also got past the sleeping guards. That is worth something as well - sneaking past an encounter as opposed to fighting it is still overcoming the challenge. Even if you assume "overcome" means more than "survive," stealthing past the monsters counts as a win.

Do they get xp for an actual combat encounter? No. But they get xp for (1) getting out of the cage, and (2) sneaking past a fight. It may not be the same, but it's something. Docking them xp just because it was easy isn't, in my book, the right thing to do.

[Telonius]

I'd go with answer #2. They failed to overcome the initial challenge (got wiped by the hobgoblins) but overcame a new challenge (escape from captivity). XP should be assigned based on the difficulty of escape. As for how much XP ... I'd treat it as a skill challenge. Standard XP. Good tactics can make difficult things trivial; Wizards do this often. Unless you're going to use class-based XP penalties, don't start going down that road.

If they regroup, go back, and wipe the goblins, that's an entirely new encounter again. It's extremely unlikely that the fight will go exactly as it did the last time. The goblins will probably adjust their tactics and meet them on more favorable terrain. You didn't mention what happened to the players' gear, but it's entirely possible that the goblins will be using some of it (or will have sold it to get better equipment for themselves).

[ahenobarbi]

Wait. I was under impression PCs do get half XP for chalanges they failed to overcome. Was I wrong?

[gogogome]

Alright, so the majority consensus seems to be
1. No XP for losing
2. Give XP for escaping
3. Give XP in the 2nd fight.

So now the question remains is: How much XP for escaping? Lets say each hobgoblin gives 100xp, do i give them 800xp for escaping? If not then please give a reason for the XP dock (like sleeping is 1/2XP because _____)

Some people also mentioned giving XP for overcoming the cage. It was an average lock of 25DC, so what is the encounter level of that?

The exact scenario was the wizard abrupt jaunts out, grabs a knife, then coup de graces the one sleeping hobgoblin guard with the keys, let the 2nd PC out, checked if everyone was sleeping (they were all in a different room), cast floating disc, and floated away to safety.

[Nifft]

Wait. I was under impression PCs do get half XP for chalanges they failed to overcome. Was I wrong?

I don't know that rule.

Do you recall which book it might be in?

[Andreaz]

So now the question remains is: How much XP for escaping? Lets say each hobgoblin gives 100xp, do i give them 800xp for escaping? If not then please give a reason for the XP dock (like sleeping is 1/2XP because _____)It's mostly a skill challenge...perception checks. Adjust the CR for the sleepy gobs.

[Strigon]

Snip.

I think we're on a very different wavelength here; I don't think I'm arguing what you think I'm arguing.
Actually, I'm not even sure what you think I'm arguing, so I don't know how to go about setting the record straight.

I'll just summarize my position, shall I?
A player having a class ability or item that makes an encounter easy is not a good reason to dock XP. You wouldn't retroactively change the GP they get as a reward, so why XP?

As for my stance on the original topic? I say give them XP equivalent to whatever total they would get if they killed all the hobgoblins directly between them and the exit.
I.E; if they would get 5 XP per hobgoblin, and there were 2 blocking the exit and 4 down the hall, away from the exit, they should get 10 XP, not 30. They "beat" those hobgoblins (albeit in a non-traditional manner, but that's neither here nor there), and they deserve the reward. They did nothing with the hobgoblins several rooms away, so they get no reward for that.

[Curmudgeon]

So now the question remains is: How much XP for escaping?
...
The exact scenario was the wizard abrupt jaunts out, grabs a knife, then coup de graces the one sleeping hobgoblin guard with the keys, let the 2nd PC out, checked if everyone was sleeping (they were all in a different room), cast floating disc, and floated away to safety.
The Abrupt Jaunt use, Move Silently while grabbing the knife (because sleeping characters still make Listen checks), and coup de grace with enough damage dealt to kill the Hobgoblin guard all together yields the XP of that one enemy.

Checking for the other guards to be asleep (Move Silently vs. Listen) should be a small amount of XP.

Because the escape was through your alteration of Floating Disk rather than any special effort on the part of the PCs, no XP for that.

[icefractal]

I don't see where riding the floating disc made a big difference. You can already get that same result by using a plank - or if the other escapee is strong enough, just by having them hold the Wizard out in front.

And I don't agree with the "easier methods get less XP" thing anyway. That just sounds like an incentive to do everything in the dumbest way so it'll be the most difficult.

On this particular matter:
1) No XP for the initial encounter, they didn't overcome it at all.
2) Full XP for the escape.
3) If they come back later, it depends whether slaying the Hobgoblins accomplishes anything. If it does, then yes.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't see where riding the floating disc made a big difference. You can already get that same result by using a plank - or if the other escapee is strong enough, just by having them hold the Wizard out in front.
Who would be moving the Disk then? It follows the spellcaster. The Disk is neither in front of, to the side of, nor behind the spellcaster; D&D has no "facing". If they're sitting on a plank resting on the Disk it'll maintain a constant separation and not move. For the Disk to follow the spellcaster, the spellcaster has to move. Without movement, there can be no following.

[gogogome]

Who would be moving the Disk then? It follows the spellcaster. The Disk is neither in front of, to the side of, nor behind the spellcaster; D&D has no "facing". If they're sitting on a plank resting on the Disk it'll maintain a constant separation and not move. For the Disk to follow the spellcaster, the spellcaster has to move. Without movement, there can be no following.

I don't want to get into a whole RAW debate here, but I'll just mention why I rule that way.

From d20srd:
"If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you."

In other words you can direct it. So you can direct it to stay still, climb atop it, then direct it to move forward. I never had anyone argue that you can't climb on top of it, only that whether it requires a move silently check or not. My players presented a good case in comparison to the other force spells which is why I rule it floats silently.

This hasn't been a gamebreaker in anyway though. I require move silently checks to go on top or get down from it, so the only usage you can get with this is comboing it with invisibility for scouting, and even then it hasn't worked out well since a lot of my monsters have blindsense.

Using it in combat is very ineffective as well. Wizards reveal their exact location everytime they cast a spell unless they use silent spell as well, and I always make sure at least one enemy is packing flour nearby or some other invisibility revealing thing. Also, directing it is a move action.

I'll give full XP. Sneaking past 7 hobgoblins is overcoming them. Thanks everyone. I'll be lenient with XP, keep everyone happy.

[hamishspence]

I figure the "directed" bit only applies to the range it can maintain.

It "accompanies you at a rate of no more than your speed each round".


So, if you're mid/high level, and you hustle, then you move 60 ft, and the disc (assuming still in range) moves 30 ft - and keeps trying to come to 5 ft away from you - unless you've directed it to remain a longer distance, like 10 ft or 15 ft.

[Curmudgeon]

The "if not otherwise directed" language only refers to the interval. Addition of riding capability to this 1st level spell would make Greater Floating Disk (4th level) redundant. From page 96 of Spell Compendium:
You can concentrate (as a standard action) on the disk to make it move with a fly speed of 20 feet (perfect). This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you about.

[Vaz]

I'll just summarize my position, shall I?
A player having a class ability or item that makes an encounter easy is not a good reason to dock XP. You wouldn't retroactively change the GP they get as a reward, so why XP?

A skill challenge involving a skill with which no PCs have as a) a class skill b) skill ranks and c) no mitigating equivalent (say in a magical zone of truth, or antimagic field, or caster isn't present) is going to be more difficult compared to a party with said skills catered for.

A challenge which is no challenge shouldn't guve XP. That way it prevents 'farming'.

A person fighting someone once can still learn something more of course. But they are learning something different each time. Think about Mike Tyson. Every time he fought, he won due to massive punches going for the knock out. But eventually, people learned how to defeat him. He kept winning with the big punches, but he didn't learn anything new from that victory. So he kept trying to win with big punches.

[Andreaz]

Vaz, you're essentially telling me the CR of an encounter should adjust to the classes of the PCs involved.

Or that each class has a penalty or bonus to incoming xp.

And that the player's care to optimize around any one thing will be rewarded with less xp.

You're telling me that whatever the player wanted most is what he'll see less rewarded.









...don't go that route. Stick to calculating CR based on whatever the encounter has that is not the Player, and let that be the judge of how much xp the PCs get.

[gogogome]

The "if not otherwise directed" language only refers to the interval. Addition of riding capability to this 1st level spell would make Greater Floating Disk (4th level) redundant. From page 96 of Spell Compendium:

I did not know the existence of that spell. You make a strong point. I will inform my players about that spell and tell them they can no longer ride floating disks.

[Strigon]

A challenge which is no challenge shouldn't guve XP. That way it prevents 'farming'.

A person fighting someone once can still learn something more of course. But they are learning something different each time. Think about Mike Tyson. Every time he fought, he won due to massive punches going for the knock out. But eventually, people learned how to defeat him. He kept winning with the big punches, but he didn't learn anything new from that victory. So he kept trying to win with big punches.

1) That's how you think it should work, and that's why you think it should work that way.
Personally, I think the reason farming doesn't happen in a TTRPG is that it's so boring, and there's enough to do already in TTRPG's. Not to mention the fact that, in many, you already start at a more interesting level so there's no need to farm up to a better level. If you're that interested in being a powerful character, you're more likely to be a min-maxer/munchkin than you are to simply farm.

2) You're making the mistake of attributing RL logic to the laws of D&D. In real life, if Mike Tyson only punches people hard in the face, all he'll ever learn is how to punch very hard in the face. Since you can only get so good at one thing, however, he eventually had nothing left to learn.
In D&D, however, I can punch things in the face, and then learn a new language from that. Or I can be better at picking locks, or sneaking around, or any number of other skills. I can even punch something in the face, and have that grant me new spells.
In real life, every time you "use a skill", that skill "gets closer to levelling up", as in games like The Elder Scrolls. In D&D, passing a challenge - of any sort, even if you find it easy - grants you abstracted experience, which can be put into literally any skill the game represents once you level up.

If Mike Tyson were a D&D Fighter, after every so many matches, he'd be perfectly justified in saying "hey, I know I've been punching guys in the face for a while, but I really want to start to learn basket weaving."
He'd then level up, put points into Craft (Woven Basket), and then he would have learned basket weaving. With no experience in the matter at all.

[Vaz]

Vaz, you're essentially telling me the CR of an encounter should adjust to the classes of the PCs involved.

And that the player's care to optimize around any one thing will be rewarded with less xp.

You're telling me that whatever the player wanted most is what he'll see less rewarded.

...don't go that route. Stick to calculating CR based on whatever the encounter has that is not the Player, and let that be the judge of how much xp the PCs get.

Yes. A challenge for one character is not a challenge for another. A triviality for one is not for another. Tell a fighter that they need to create their own personal demiplane before sending ice assassins of shadesteel golems mindraped to the bidding of the fusioned astral seed child of an aleax and the caster, and you'll be looked at blankly. A near impossibility. A wizard can expend a few thousand xp and accomplish the same thing in a morning. Or they can craft an item of it and use transference amulets to have the XP donated to them.

Asking a Barbarian to get into a locked chest in an antimagic room filling with water is easy. SHe sunders the chest, provided she has enough strength. How does a wizard do it? They are unlikely to do it, possibly drowning because they haven't optimized open lock and their tanked fort save is poor.
However after 15 rounds of passong ever more difficult fort saves, the wizard opens the lock.

The barbarian may have done Cancer mage strength optimizing with festering anger. Her spit could do it probably.

A player optimizing for one thing gets access to more dangerous threats and higher levelled loot more quickly than less optimized threats, because they are effectively able to handle more dangerous opponents than their character level suggests.

Or are you saying that all classes are equal?

Do you learn more about things when you tie your shoelaces in a morning? No. An appropriately challenged party/character should be one which challenges the party. Just becausd they are a group of level 10 characters like a Dominant Time Mantle Ardent, Druid, Cloistered Cleric and Wizard does mean that CR10 foes are perfect.

Mainly because the CR system is so badly borked as it is, that it is rarely CR10. Look at the Adamantine Horror.

[Barstro]

I'll just summarize my position, shall I?
A player having a class ability or item that makes an encounter easy is not a good reason to dock XP. You wouldn't retroactively change the GP they get as a reward, so why XP?
I completely agree. See, same wavelength. :smallwink:
The XP should be based on the challenge itself, not how the challenge was solved.
The only difference we might have is that I that the PCs doing a simple action that anyone can do should not necessarily grant full XP. To put my view in today's terms; Solving a math problem on nine sheets of paper should be worth the same as using a computer to do it in a few seconds. However, writing down a random number and being correct should not be worth the same. The first two are tackling the same problem (and either learning or proving what one knows) while the last one is ignoring the problem (and demonstrating nothing).


As for my stance on the original topic? I say give them XP equivalent to whatever total they would get if they killed all the hobgoblins directly between them and the exit.
I.E; if they would get 5 XP per hobgoblin, and there were 2 blocking the exit and 4 down the hall, away from the exit, they should get 10 XP, not 30. They "beat" those hobgoblins (albeit in a non-traditional manner, but that's neither here nor there), and they deserve the reward. They did nothing with the hobgoblins several rooms away, so they get no reward for that.
Agreed. In fact, they lose loot in this proposition, so they already hurt themselves.

But, I would not grant that same XP if one of them accidentally (the important part in this) stepped on a loose stone in the cell, stumbled into the wall, and found that the outside wall was weakened and tunneled out in five minutes. No XP for deus ex machina.

[Vaz]

A wizard who can teleport up a mountain gets the same XP as someone who climbs uo a mountain?

Why? What did the wizard learn more about getting to the top of the mountain than the person who spent a few days climbing? What actual challenge was there is getting to the top of a mountain anyway?

If the wizard climbed alongside the fighter climbing with him, then sure. The wizard shpukd get equal share.

If you as a level 10 character can handle CR20 encounters, and breeze past a CR10 Encounter with the ease of a CR1/4 encounter, why should you get Xp for it? What experiences did you learn after you finger of deathed that housecat?

What difference is there in someone handling a CR10 encounter with the ease of a CR1/4?

'CHALLENGE rating'. This is a figure with which it is measured against an average party level of moderate difficulty.

Moderate.

The ease with which a challenge is bypassed determines its difficulty. If ut is easy for the average party level, then the CR is reduced.

[Strigon]

A wizard who can teleport up a mountain gets the same XP as someone who climbs uo a mountain?

Why? What did the wizard learn more about getting to the top of the mountain than the person who spent a few days climbing? What actual challenge was there is getting to the top of a mountain anyway?

The fighter got more experience with climbing.
The wizard got more experience with the intricacies of spellcasting.

Experience is experience; the type doesn't matter, your personal difficulty doesn't matter, only the rating of the encounter matters.
If your DM throws highly rewarding encounters at you, that happen to work well with your abilities, that's on him. You beat the encounter, the encounter has a set reward, ergo you get that reward.

If, on the other hand, the Fighter ran into an avalanche and a White Dragon on the way up, then sure, load him with extra XP. But otherwise, they both overcame the same challenge, and they should both get the same reward.

[Barstro]

A wizard who can teleport up a mountain gets the same XP as someone who climbs uo a mountain?

Yes. They each get nothing for climbing a mountain.


If you as a level 10 character can handle CR20 encounters, and breeze past a CR10 Encounter with the ease of a CR1/4 encounter, why should you get Xp for it? What experiences did you learn after you finger of deathed that housecat?
Frankly, that's on the DM for not providing a decent encounter. I can see such encounters as a way to boost the PCs levels to where the DM feels they should be for a later fight.

However, I would not complain if a DM provided no XP for what was basically sparing with a live practice dummy. I do note that the wizard chose to waste a decent spell on a housecat; so he should get the housecat's XP (This strikes me as a horrible waste of time on the part of the wizard and he will quickly fall behind).


The ease with which a challenge is bypassed determines its difficulty. If ut is easy for the average party level, then the CR is reduced.
Situation;
PCs are trapped in a cell guarded by many creatures of very high CR. They can either 1) pick the lock and make dozens of skill checks to sneak out 2) use the scrolls of Xorn Movement that the fighter "hid" in his body when he saw that the fight was going poorly and just slip out the side of the building.

Are you of the opinion that option 2 is not difficult and should lead to less XP?

[Strigon]

If you as a level 10 character can handle CR20 encounters, and breeze past a CR10 Encounter with the ease of a CR1/4 encounter, why should you get Xp for it? What experiences did you learn after you finger of deathed that housecat?


The DMG has rules on handling encounters far below appropriate CR. You dock XP for challenges far below your level.
The DMG does not state, however, that you should dock XP from the wizard because he's a tier 1 class.

Also, if you can handle CR 20 encounters, then you should be at or near level 20, because levels and hit dice are meant to represent power. Thus, if you are powerful enough to beat CR 20 creatures at level 10, then there is a discrepancy that can only be fixed by raising your levels.
Which can only be done by giving you XP.

Whatever your personal feelings are, by the rules of the game, I see no evidence that your view is correct.
If you claim that this would be something that should be houseruled, I can and will disagree with you, but it will ultimately come down to opinion.

[sovin_ndore]

I would probably have given XP rewards for both encounters. I don't really have alot of argument or reasoning behind that decision. I just generally feel that if the PCs participated in a heinous encounter and used abilities/expended resources, then the encounter has been a success. In more basic terms, if it drives the story, even in an unexpected direction, it has been a success.

The reason I felt compelled to post, though, was that the 'wizard teleporting to the top of a mountain' analogy. I really think it misses the point. If you dungeon crawl and there is a room full of dreaded Gazebos which never gets its door opened, the encounter never triggers and the XP is not doled out. If you don't find yourself low on spells and a random encounter table is not rolled on, you don't get xp for the potential encounter you might have fought. The teleportation may also bypass encounters that otherwise might have happened, but if they are not part of the story then they have no business affecting character growth (mechanically via xp gain).

This is much different than coming into a scene with hostile creatures and managing to avoid a combat encounter. Whether this is done through diplomancy or stealth rolls, or spells that achieve these same basic goals, the encounter becomes a part of the story and xp rewards would be applicable.

[Vaz]

One advantage that you always have over a professional writer
designing an adventure is that you know your players. You know
what they like, what they’re likely to do, what their capabilities
are, and what’s going on in your campaign right now. That’s why
even when you use a published adventure, you’ll want to work to
ensure that it gets integrated into your campaign properly.
...
Examine the attack bonus of the monster. Look at the damage it
can deal. When you compare these pieces of information to the
AC and hit points of the PCs, will the monster be able to hit or
seriously damage the characters?
...
These sorts of questions and analyses allow you to judge monsters,
encounters, and adventures and determine whether they are
appropriate for your group. Challenge Rating assignments for
such obstacles will help, but no one knows your group of characters
as well as you do.


When the party defeats monsters, you award the characters experience
points (XP). The more dangerous the monsters, compared
to the party’s level, the more XP the characters earn.
...
You must decide when a challenge has been overcome. Usually,
this is simple to do. Did the PCs defeat the enemy in battle? Then
they met the challenge and earned experience points. Other
times, it can be trickier. Suppose the PCs sneak past the sleeping
minotaur to get into the magical vault—did they overcome the
minotaur encounter? If their goal was to get into the vault and the
minotaur was just a guardian, then the answer is probably yes. It’s
up to you to make such judgments.

Only characters who take part in an encounter should gain the
commensurate awards. Characters who died before the encounter
took place, or did not participate for some other reason, earn nothing,
even if they are raised or healed later on.
...
To determine the XP award for an encounter, follow these steps.
1. Determine each character’s level. Don’t forget to account for
ECL (see Monsters as Races, page 172) if any of the characters
are of a powerful race.
2. For each monster defeated, determine that
single monster’s Challenge Rating.


An orc warband that attacks
the PCs by flying over them
on primitive hang gliders and
dropping large rocks is not the
same encounter as one in which
the orcs just charge in with spears.
Sometimes, the circumstances give the
characters’ opponents a distinct advantage.
Other times, the PCs have an
advantage. Adjust the XP award and the
EL depending on how greatly circumstances
change the encounter’s difficulty


Just because the PCs are
worn down from prior encounters
does not mean that later (more
difficult) encounters should gain
higher awards. Judge the difficulty of an
encounter on its own merits.
...
Assigning Ad Hoc XP Awards
Sometimes the XP table doesn’t quite
cover a given situation. If two orcs
are an EL 1 encounter, four orcs EL
3, eight orcs EL 5, and sixteen orcs
EL 7 (maybe), are thirty-two orcs
an EL 9 encounter? A party of 9th
level characters almost certainly
can wipe them out with ease. By 9th
level, a character’s defenses are so
good that a standard orc cannot hit
him or her, and one or two spells
cast by a character of that level
could destroy all thirty-two
orcs. At such a point, your
judgment overrules whatever
the XP table would
say.
An encounter
so easy that it
uses up none or
almost none of
the PCs’ resources
shouldn’t result in any
XP award at all, while a
dangerous encounter that
the PCs overcome handily
through luck or excellent
strategy is worth full XP. However,
an encounter in which
the PCs defeat something far
above their own level (CRs higher
than their level by eight or more) was
probably the result of fantastic luck or a
unique set of circumstances, and thus a full
XP award may not be appropriate. You’re going
to have to make these decisions. As a guideline, the minimum
and maximum awards given on Table 2–6: Experience
Point Awards (Single Monster) for a group of a given
level are the least and most XP you should award a group.
Circumstances in your campaign may alter this, however.


In the end, this kind of story award feels pretty much like a
standard award. Don’t ever feel obligated to give out XP for an encounter
that you don’t feel was much of a challenge. Remember
that the key word in “experience award” is award. The PCs should
have to do something impressive to get an award.
...
Remember: A goal that’s easy to accomplish is worth little or no
award. Likewise, goals that merely reflect standard awards (such as
“Kill all the monsters in this cavern complex”) should be treated as
standard awards.
...
Of course, whether or not you want to change character progress,
you may decide to modify various Challenge Ratings. If you think that
a certain monster is worth more (or less) than its Monster Manual
rating, feel free to change it.

Hopefully that helps.

Exactly what I've been seen, ironically enough. Is it a challenge? GIVE EXP?

Is it no challenge whatsoever? DON'T GIVE EXP

[Strigon]

When the party defeats monsters, you award the characters experience
points (XP). The more dangerous the monsters, compared
to the party’s level, the more XP the characters earn.
This speaks for itself.


An orc warband that attacks
the PCs by flying over them
on primitive hang gliders and
dropping large rocks is not the
same encounter as one in which
the orcs just charge in with spears.
Sometimes, the circumstances give the
characters’ opponents a distinct advantage.
Other times, the PCs have an
advantage. Adjust the XP award and the
EL depending on how greatly circumstances
change the encounter’s difficulty
Circumstances. Not player abilities. Ambushes, weather, technology, fortifications = circumstances.
Party strength = APL.


An encounter
so easy that it
uses up none or
almost none of
the PCs’ resources
shouldn’t result in any
XP award at all, while a
dangerous encounter that
the PCs overcome handily
through luck or excellent
strategy is worth full XP.
I'd say Teleporting is an excellent strategy. I'd also say that even one spell for a wizard isn't almost none of his daily resources; especially one so vital as Teleport.

[Vaz]

I really don't have the heart to debate your ability to read when it says exactly what I've been saying and you're choosing to ignore.

[Andreaz]

I really don't have the heart to debate your ability to read when it says exactly what I've been saying and you're choosing to ignore.You are doing that yourself. All your texts cite power difference based on encounter circumstances, not PC ability.

A circumstance that makes the encounter more difficult is numerical advantage. Another is the enemy being able to exploit terrain in ways the pcs can't, and vice-versa.

When the pcs fight archers in an area with cover enough they can fight protected, they get less xp then if they fought in an open field.
If they whip up cover on the open field (stone shape, improvising a pallisade by uprooting a tree trunk...), it's their prerogative on how to beat the encounter and deserves the open field xp.

[Strigon]

Snip.

Thank you.

Now, it has become quite clear we'll never reach consensus on this issue; I personally think now is the time to drop it (actually it was earlier, but I can't go back in time.)

[ahenobarbi]

I don't know that rule.

Do you recall which book it might be in?

I thought it was in DMG but I was wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd say Teleporting is an excellent strategy. I'd also say that even one spell for a wizard isn't almost none of his daily resources; especially one so vital as Teleport.
You do realize that Abrupt Jaunt isn't a spell, right? It's a Spell-like ability usable multiple times per day, and the more Intelligent the Wizard, the lower a portion of their daily resources for each use.

[nijineko]

well, i didn't expect my offhand comments to assist in providing quite this much fodder for discussion.

in any case, it prompted me to actually "look things up", which usually reveals that i mis-remembered stuff and i learn fun and interesting things - let's take a look:

i said that i didn't think the rules equated learning with xp... it seems i was wrong - in what might be described as the fluff text on p36 of the DMG (3.5, first printing, 2003), column 2, paragraph 1, it says "experience points are a measure of accomplishment. They represent training and learning by doing..."

The method of determining xp is as follows:


(paragraph 6) "...break game down into encounters, and then break the encounters down into parts..."

should be easy enough.


(paragraph 7) " A challenge rating is a measure of how easy or difficult a monster or trap is..." "Challenge ratings are used... to determine Encounter Levels (EL)..." "A monster is usually overcome by defeating it in battle, a trap by by being disarmed, and so forth."

that puts the kibosh on my 'gets xp for surviving' theory, unless the "usually" saves my idea.


(paragraph 8) "You must decide when a challenge has been overcome. Usually, this is simple to do"

all xp is dm fiat, basically. and there's that "usually" again.


(page 37, paragraph 8, continued) "Other times, it can be trickier. Suppose the PCs sneak past the sleeping minotaur to get into the magical vault - did they overcome the minotaur encounter? If the goal was to get into the vault and the minotaur was just a guardian, then the answer is probably yes. It's up to you to make such judgements"

so this is a nod to non-standard (i.e. - non-battle... and presumably non-disarm as well) tactics, yes they happen, but you've gotta make the judgement call. so, dm fiat again.


(paragraph 9) "Only character who take part in an encounter should gain the commensurate awards. Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason earn nothing....

the collary of that statement is that participating characters who die (and are presumably raised) still get the award.


paragraph 10 gives the 6 step process for how to award xp for monsters. this could be extended to include any sort of situation by assigning said situation a challenge rating. apparently i've been calculating and handing out xp wrong. =P

paragraph 11 states using spells of different types does not change the XP award (if any); they compare a casting of unholy blight with summon monster IV by way of example.

the next two sections deal with fractional CR stuff, and calculating CR for NPCs.


Ah! there's my save!!!


Page 39, Section 1 "Challenge Ratings for Traps", paragraph 2 "Overcoming the challenge of a trap involves encountering the trap, either by disarming it, avoiding it, or simply surviving the damage it deals. A trap never discovered or never bypassed was not encountered (and hence provides no XP award)."

But it only applies to traps, not to encounters generally, as i was postulating.



And then we have the "Modifying XP awards and Encounter Levels" and "Assigning Ad Hoc XP Awards" sections, where the real rules twisting takes place.

Notable points are:

"Adjust the XP award and the EL depending on how greatly circumstances change the encounter's difficulty"
"Experience points drive the game. Don't be too stingy or too generous." (but they don't say which is which or how much is which)
"Don't waste a lot of time worrying about the minutiae."
"Don't worry about modifying encounters until after you have played the game a while." (in other words, the DM has to level up before you are supposed to tinker with the mechanics of the game. ;D )
"Bad rolls or poor choices on the PC's part should not modify ELs or XP awards. If the encounter is difficult becasue the players were unlucky or careless, they don't get more experience."
"Just because the PCs are wornd dwon from prior encounters does not meant that later encounters (which are now more difficult) should gain higher awards."
"An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all, while a dangerous encounter that the PCs overcome handily through luck or excellent strategy is worth full XP. However, an encounter in which the PCs defeat something far above their own level (CR8+ or more) was probably the result of fantastic luck or a unique set of circumstances, and thus a full XP award may not be appropriate. You're going to have to make these decisions. see table 2-6 for guidance, awards given are the least and most xp you should award a group."


And then they mention (on page 40) giving XP for story awards (only if you are an experienced dm...) and for non-combat encounter such as mysteries, puzzles, roleplaying-type encounters, mission goals, and actual roleplaying.

And finally, my last comment is the formula (on page 41)


13.33 encounters of EL equal to the PCs level should gain them a level.

I guess the .33 is for the boss encounter or something.


And that my friends, is the RAW. It seems that I've been off on some of my interpretations, but hopefully this will prove interesting.




Oh, and by the way, did anyone else notice that the OP made their decision and thanked us all quite a few posts ago? ^^

[SinsI]

You get XP for doing something that is aimed at overcoming challenges.
So the first fight should award them at least some XP. It should be a reduced amount since they didn't really overcome it (if a CR 30 dragon brings a 1st level character back to his lair to snack on later, surviving the initial clash doesn't teach his as much as killing it).

For the running away part, look at each character's contribution. From your telling, the wizard did all the work of saving them, while the other guy was a dead weight that was hindering him. In that case only the wizard should receive full XP for overcoming the guards that stood in his way (with circumstance bonus to CR due to him being in a jail) + bonus XP for saving the other guy.

[Larrx]

Gah, first I think I have to mention that xp for failure is a great framework for a game. Some games do this. I remember the original Call of Cthulhu. Your skills increased whenever you failed. This organically accomplished what D&D did with its tiered xp to level system. If your gun shooting skill was 50% then it would increase much more quickly than if your skill was 75%. Because you would fail more. It was great. It was more realistic and it required less math. But that's not what D&D is.

D&D awards xp for overcoming challenges. This is unfortunate language. Xp should be awarded for accomplishing goals, the challenge is incidental. Encounter one: I don't think we were ever told why they were fighting the Hobs in the first place, but the fact that they all got knocked into negatives implies that they did not achieve their goal. No xp.

Encounter two: goal is to escape. Successful! All the xp.

Encounter three: Do they have a reason to return? What is it? If they attain that goal, then full xp.

Who the characters are, what their capabilities are, and whether any of these things is a 'challenge' . . . shouldn't be decided on a case by case basis. If the party consists of a planar shepard, an incantatrix, a mailman, and a cancer mage, then of course you have to increase challenge rating across the board. You don't need to make any calls at the table. You should decide what CR means much earlier.

[nijineko]

As I'd previously mentioned, I'd been calculating and awarding xp contrary to the RAW. However, I don't think my methods were necessarily wrong or bad.

I read over my notes and the module, if any. I set exploration awards if they go to certain locations, story and rp awards associated with certain goals and npcs, side quest awards for discovering certain things npcs want - and then awards if they accomplish the goal, combat awards and so forth. I award both failure and success. Always have, since that is what makes sense to me.

Most of these awards are not large, but the one thing I've learned from video games and mmo's is that little awards add up, and getting little bonuses for the small stuff tends to encourage players to actually search for small stuff, in other words engage with the world and npcs. It's also a great way to award players who aren't combat monsters (particularly in mixed player type groups), encourage combat monsters to try something else occasionally, and tailor the xp progression.