Can PCs choose whether NPCs gain XP?

[gogogome]

I'm running war of the burning sky, and the players need Torrent (an NPC that basically guides them through the campaign), but they don't want to share XP with her. So they are insisting that they hire her as an adventurer hireling so she doesn't take a bite out of their XP.

Is this... Iunno... legal?

[Troacctid]

Hirelings have no investment in what is going on. They just do their jobs. Does this NPC have any investment in the adventure?

[gogogome]

Hirelings have no investment in what is going on. They just do their jobs. Does this NPC have any investment in the adventure?

She is basically the driving force of the campaign, at the start anyway. She is on a mission and needs the PC to aid them. Whenever the PCs are stuck or don't know what to do, she is the one that advances the game.

She is however, optional. The adventure path clearly stated that. The PCs want her around because... they're basically one level higher than murder hobos, and get stuck on what to do, but they don't want their XP taken. I have complete confidence that the PCs can complete the adventure even if Torrent is stuck at level 2 forever. She's a cleric btw, with items that help the PCs like potion of endure elements and such.

On one hand NPCs aren't supposed to advance in level or soak XP right? On the other hand the adventure path clearly specified that any NPCs that aid the PCs in battle take an equal share of the XP.

[Coidzor]

Sounds like you have your answer. Girl gets her XP on and can level up, making her even more useful.

[Troacctid]

There are three types of NPCs who can fight alongside the party.


Cohorts: Cohorts follow a player who has Leadership or a similar feat or ability. They don't gain a share of the xp. Instead, they gain xp as their leader gains xp.
Hirelings: Hirelings are single-class NPCs for hire who have no stake in the adventure and work with the party in exchange for pay and sometimes a share of the loot. They do not get a share of xp, nor do they level up.
Allies: Everyone else who fights alongside the party is an ally, and is entitled to a full share of xp and loot.

If your players want to keep this non-hireling NPC in the party, but don't want her to take a share of the xp, one of them should take the Leadership feat and bring her on as a cohort.

[gogogome]

Sounds like you have your answer. Girl gets her XP on and can level up, making her even more useful.

The whole hireling thing allows an "out" though. The PCs already have a cleric so they are very irritated about torrent. I guess what I am asking is two things, first is it RAW legal to turn her into a hireling, and second, is it a good idea to make her into a hireling?

edit: Where does it say adventurer hirelings don't have any stake in the adventure? There are scores of mercenary PCs so...

[Troacctid]

edit: Where does it say adventurer hirelings don't have any stake in the adventure? There are scores of mercenary PCs so...

It's the definition of a hireling.


Hirelings differ from cohorts in that they have no investment in what's going on. They just do their jobs.

Unlike cohorts, hirelings do not make decisions. They do as they're told (at least in theory). Thus, even if they go on an adventure with the PCs, they gain no experience and do not affect any calculations involving the party level.

[Coidzor]

Would she agree? Doesn't sound like it.

Would it make narrative sense for her role in the AP? Doesn't sound like it.

[gogogome]

Would she agree? Doesn't sound like it.

Would it make narrative sense for her role in the AP? Doesn't sound like it.

Actually it might. The player's goal is to escape the country. They are merely working with Torrent because she can help them escape. So already there is a payment. We'll help you with your mission if you get us out of here since getting out of here requires helping you anyway.

So they can go one step further and say that they'll hire her and split ways when their goals no longer align.

[Psyren]

IMHO, the difference is in the purpose they serve. A hireling is there for a specific and generally short-term goal, e.g. a wizard taxi service to teleport you from A to B, which is a need that arises and then ends. A cohort meanwhile is someone that is in the campaign for the long haul and has a vested interest in the group's success (or at least, that of their master, which may not necessarily align with the goals of the group as a whole.) A wizard hireling may teleport you to the dungeon's front door and, being as surprised by the orc patrol as you are, throw out some fireball or fog spells to help you secure the area before waiting around outside or even taking off. A wizard cohort meanwhile will teleport you there, help secure the area, and then prepare to head inside the fortress alongside you no matter how long it might take to finish your business inside.

[Inevitability]

The PC's have the choice of bringing this NPC along or leaving her alone. The first option gives them a valuable ally but reduces their XP; the second option is more dangerous but also more rewarding.

It's up to them to choose what they want: no need for you to let them have the best of both worlds.

[Ashtagon]

The real test of a hireling vs. ally is, "Would that NPC still be trying to do this particular adventure if the PCs weren't paying her?" I haven't read that adventure path, but in this case, I suspect the answer is yes, which means she isn't and can't be treated as a hireling, at least with regard to this adventure.

[Yahzi]

In my world, where XP = 5 gp and 5 gp = XP, just like the DMG says it does, this is a non-issue. The players can pool all of their XP for one PC, or they can give it to followers and hirelings, or they can trade it for gold and magic items. That's on them.

That said, no NPC would risk their life for peanuts. If they aren't willing to share their gains, why would she share the risk? I would have her wave bye-bye.

[RoboEmperor]

I disagree with everyone here. The PCs are hiring her as a guide. Since she won't get stronger, she'll be as handy in a fight as a normal hireling.

[zergling.exe]

There's always the option to just give her an extra full share of the exp and not diminish what the PCs get. It shouldn't make too much of a difference, especially if she justs tags along.

edit:

In my world, where XP = 5 gp and 5 gp = XP, just like the DMG says it does, this is a non-issue. The players can pool all of their XP for one PC, or they can give it to followers and hirelings, or they can trade it for gold and magic items. That's on them.

Where is this rule? I've been looking through the DMG and am having a hard time finding it.

[Chronikoce]

You could always just give them reduced xp without making a fuss about it. I mean do you give them a complete breakdown of where each xp came from and how it was distributed?

It's probably too late for that now since they already are making a fuss though.

I guess my question is are the PC prepared to compensate her quite heavily as a payed hireling? I mean if xp splitting is supposed to be her reward and they want her to be a hireling instead they should be paying her daily for her service.

[Kish]

I'm running war of the burning sky, and the players need Torrent (an NPC that basically guides them through the campaign), but they don't want to share XP with her. So they are insisting that they hire her as an adventurer hireling so she doesn't take a bite out of their XP.

Is this... Iunno... legal?
Legality isn't the issue.

The question is, do you want to run a game where all the PCs are murderhobos who participate in the adventure because this NPC leads them to? If so, it makes sense to expedite it (not having the NPC take XP because you want her there as much as they do). I normally do this when the temporary help of an NPC is clearly supposed to be a clear-cut bonus, not mixed.

If not, then what Dire_Stirge said: Make them choose. Let them find motivation from somewhere or deal with all the ramifications of choosing to default to the de facto party leader being an NPC.

[90sMusic]

I think some people get way too caught up with the "rules" honestly.

You're the DM. You can have her not take a bite of the experience from the other players, but can grant her own experience on top of that amount. Just work with the players so you can all tell a fun story, and you can rule zero anything.

[AnachroNinja]

Throwing my hat in on the side of "Do whatever is going to be the most fun for the players and you". If they just want to have a portable plot guide, and it doesn't bother you, then go for it. Maybe even just level her up periodically or so stuff on her own when she's not strictly needed. Don't over think it so much.

[Andezzar]

There are three types of NPCs who can fight alongside the party.


Allies: Everyone else who fights alongside the party is an ally, and is entitled to a full share of xp and loot.

What's the difference between ally and party member? I don't see any difference except possibly who plays them. If the NPC pulls the same weight as a PC he should contribute to the party level as a PC and be rewarded as a PC.

Also increasing the PL a bit does not significantly slow the progression of the PCs. As soon as they are one level behind the theoretical party without the NPC, they start gaining more XP than the theoretical party. So they won't be far behind.

[Troacctid]

What's the difference between ally and party member? I don't see any difference except possibly who plays them. If the NPC pulls the same weight as a PC he should contribute to the party level as a PC and be rewarded as a PC.

There is no difference except who plays them.


Essentially, [allies who travel with the party] are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players.

[Âmesang]

Where is this rule? I've been looking through the DMG and am having a hard time finding it.
Player's Handbook, p.132 ("Spell," under "Spellcasting and Services") and DUNGEON MASTER'S Guide, p. 285 ("Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values").

It's a general rule when dealing with third-party sources of spellcasting and item crafting. So, for example, if you hire an NPC wizard to cast limited wish for you, you pay 1,500 gp (300 XP × 5 gp) on top of the normal cost for purchasing a 7th-level spell. Likewise, a typical scroll of wish costs 28,825 gp — (CL 17 × SL 9 × 25 gp) + (5,000 XP × 5 gp).

(I used the same rule to determine, in general, how much a character's permanent spells subtracted from the character's total wealth.)

[zergling.exe]

Player's Handbook, p.132 ("Spell," under "Spellcasting and Services") and DUNGEON MASTER'S Guide, p. 285 ("Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values").

It's a general rule when dealing with third-party sources of spellcasting and item crafting. So, for example, if you hire an NPC wizard to cast limited wish for you, you pay 1,500 gp (300 XP × 5 gp) on top of the normal cost for purchasing a 7th-level spell. Likewise, a typical scroll of wish costs 28,825 gp — (CL 17 × SL 9 × 25 gp) + (5,000 XP × 5 gp).

(I used the same rule to determine, in general, how much a character's permanent spells subtracted from the character's total wealth.)

Not quite what Yahzi was saying; in that they give gp instead of XP, and you can turn that gp into XP, and also give it all to one person so they get all the XP.

[Faily]

The PC's have the choice of bringing this NPC along or leaving her alone. The first option gives them a valuable ally but reduces their XP; the second option is more dangerous but also more rewarding.

It's up to them to choose what they want: no need for you to let them have the best of both worlds.

This.

Also, as a rule of thumb, I generally go "if an NPC is contributing to the fight, they get xp". Only exception to this are Cohorts and Followers, but they actually have rules of their own for that.

[daryen]

Another option: if they choose to go without her, let them struggle a bit, then bring her back once to give them a second chance.

[Coidzor]

Not quite what Yahzi was saying; in that they give gp instead of XP, and you can turn that gp into XP, and also give it all to one person so they get all the XP.

Iirc, you cook the XP out of corpses and make it into a metaphysical physical substance. Then you can pass it around or snort it in order to level up.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's up to the DM if NPCs get xp, not the players.
That said, if she's just guiding them and healing them after fights and otherwise staying out of the fray, she's acting like a hireling and probably shouldn't get xp or loot as long as they pay her a fair daily rate.

What chapter are they in, and what's the make up of the party? I'm just curious, I'm running WotBS myself. Aside from her basically being their "client" early on, Ch. 2 would be really tough to survive without her unless they've got a few healers and people who can cast Stand the Heat. I know there's a lot of NPCs early on (seriously...it's nuts...) and you'll want to put some of them in a guest / non-combat role, but Torrent's probably the NPC you'd least want to do that with.

My group found her quite helpful and had no problem with her taking an even share of loot and xp. I mean, as a DM you adjust the encounters and treasure for larger parties anyway, so no big deal. Once they delivered the intel I planned to drop her from the party and stay in Seaquen, but they wanted to keep her. So ever since she's been an NPC with them, getting an even split of everything. (They were willing to take her on as a cohort via Leadership, but I ban that feat and I think it's better this way -- she's beholden to no one PC over another)

[gogogome]

Yeah we're about to go into chapter 2.

She joins combat but she's not doing anything important in combat. She just stays back, guards the spellcasters like the book told me to, and help coup de grace things.

They don't mind sharing loot. DMG2 says she gets a full share as hireling until they reach level 3. They don't want to give her XP though. Since we have a fighter and a cleric, the players complain she's only useful as a guide, and hindering their fighter and cleric prowess for this guide is angering them.

I'm leaning towards letting them hire her. Their goals don't align. Torrent acts like a mercenary til they split paths because of her mission while PCs act like murder hobos who are trying to get away from the war.

[Knaight]

Her not getting combat experience for combats she doesn't participate in makes sense, but that's about the extent of it. Trying to employ the hireling loophole is just ridiculous.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah we're about to go into chapter 2.

She joins combat but she's not doing anything important in combat. She just stays back, guards the spellcasters like the book told me to, and help coup de grace things.

They don't mind sharing loot. DMG2 says she gets a full share as hireling until they reach level 3. They don't want to give her XP though. Since we have a fighter and a cleric, the players complain she's only useful as a guide, and hindering their fighter and cleric prowess for this guide is angering them.

I'm leaning towards letting them hire her. Their goals don't align. Torrent acts like a mercenary til they split paths because of her mission while PCs act like murder hobos who are trying to get away from the war.

A 2nd cleric isn't really a hindrance...two clerics can provide different spells and domains, and again...the campaign assumes a rough progression timetable for level ups, so you should be adjusting encounters based on party size anyway. It's up to you..."xp" isn't some physical thing to be divvied up consciously by the PCs. I guess if they really insist. I'd either go full hireling and have her get her pay (increased for hazardous work) and completely stay out of combat and just heal them after it, getting no loot or xp; or treat her as another full-fledged party member w/ equal shares of loot and xp. No in-between.

Also, I'll just say....if their intentions are to just be murder hobos, you're going to be tossing out a lot of the campaign progression. To the point you're re-writing so much that it's probably not worth bothering to use the adventure path.

[TheIronGolem]

I'm picturing a bunch of adventurers yelling "Stop learning!" as they pelt a cleric with coins.

[Inevitability]

I'm picturing a bunch of adventurers yelling "Stop learning!" as they pelt a cleric with coins.

Can I sig this?

[Necrov]

Personally, I wouldn't have told them if she was taking a share of the XP or not. How they share their loot is their InCharacter choice. Making in game decisions on how you treat another person by whether you want to share XP with them is just... well; lame, not to mention based on OutOfCharacter mechanics.

Ask yourself this. If the issue of XP had never come up, would they have gone down a route of convolutedly hiring her, as opposed to just accepting her help and offering it in return?

I don't like the Hireling route in this instance, it feels cheap and motivated by meta-gamey intentions.

[gogogome]

That is a valid point Necrov. In character all of them would accept Torrent's help. The only reason they're trying to undermine her is because of XP. But then again in character, if they knew her presence would stunt their growth, they'd do the same. So I guess is do adventurers know what XP is? They have to right? Because crafting requires XP.

[Necrov]

That is a valid point Necrov. In character all of them would accept Torrent's help. The only reason they're trying to undermine her is because of XP. But then again in character, if they knew her presence would stunt their growth, they'd do the same. So I guess is do adventurers know what XP is? They have to right? Because crafting requires XP.

Wholeheartedly no. XP is not a tangible thing, apart from in universes that play very tongue in cheek with the fourth wall. The OotS Universe that we all know and love is a good example of this. From an In Character perspective, how does having someone coming with you 'stunt your growth', especially one who as you've described doesn't particularly take much part in combat beyond protecting spellcasters and coup de gracing some things. Does the fighter feel he's missing out on valuable combat experience by not stabbing unconscious people in the neck? Or perhaps the Spellcasters aren't getting to practice their strategic five foot step enough anymore? Bah. But that's largely irrelevant. You can justify for your players after the fact. But it appears that they're trying to make an In Character decision based on Out Of Character mechanics.

My interpretation of XP costs for crafting, is that it represents an investment of your knowledge, care and time you could spend doing things elsewhere. My interpretation is also that it's there to stop you spamming spells abusively.

[Yahzi]

XP is not a tangible thing, apart from in universes that play very tongue in cheek with the fourth wall.
Er, no. Somebody is writing an entire series of dramatic novels (and a game worldbook) in a world where XP is tangible. :smallbiggrin:

[AnachroNinja]

It is very valid for the party to feel they are being limited in their personal growth. Having another reasonably powerful contributer to fights means they are not getting pushed to the edge to the same degree, something that is an in character concern representing their desire for XP. The hero who wants to ride the razor's edge of danger to always grow stronger. Something like DBZ characters who refuse to accept help.

This whole concept is as neta gamey and problematic as you choose for it to be. The only question that should matter is: Is it going to improve the game for anyone to force the party to accept an NPC they don't want and an XP penalty they obviously hate? What is the gain in that scenario?

[Sliver]

If she is involved in combat, she gets a share of the xp. If the players don't want to share xp with an NPC, then the NPC shouldn't be involved in combat. (Post-combat healing doesn't give xp, so if it's one of the services she performs, it doesn't make her involved in the prior battle.)

And no, XP is not something that the characters themselves would be aware of... Unless you are running a campaign setting in which NPCs argue with the universe about how difficult a challenge actually was and that they should get more XP out of it, and then the universe tells them that there was a circumstance bonus that made the challenge easier so they got less XP, and then they argue that CR should be static and not altered by circumstances, and so forth.

You already have the monsters players to deal with...

[Andezzar]

Wholeheartedly no. XP is not a tangible thing, apart from in universes that play very tongue in cheek with the fourth wall.I disagree. Levels and XP are quantifiable values even IC. There are spells that cost XP and so a caster can know how much XP over the last level up he had before casting so many of those spells that they start fizzling. Crafting and a thought bottle gives you the same value. Many spells reference the level of certain creatures, so based on the performance of those spells, a character can also deduce his and their level.

[Necrov]

Er, no. Somebody is writing an entire series of dramatic novels (and a game worldbook) in a world where XP is tangible. :smallbiggrin:

I consider this to be tongue in cheek with the fourth wall. If you don't that's your bag. But consider that it is certainly a break from the literary norm. Exceptions to every rule.


It is very valid for the party to feel they are being limited in their personal growth. Having another reasonably powerful contributer to fights means they are not getting pushed to the edge to the same degree, something that is an in character concern representing their desire for XP. The hero who wants to ride the razor's edge of danger to always grow stronger. Something like DBZ characters who refuse to accept help.

This has -some- legs. But I still feel it's a really lame way of saying "I don't want to share my XP." Which is an OC concern. Of course, if this matched their original personalities, and the characters are all friendless tsundere types. Then... sure.


And no, XP is not something that the characters themselves would be aware of... Unless you are running a campaign setting in which NPCs argue with the universe about how difficult a challenge actually was and that they should get more XP out of it, and then the universe tells them that there was a circumstance bonus that made the challenge easier so they got less XP, and then they argue that CR should be static and not altered by circumstances, and so forth.

Yep. And circumstances where someone is just shy of a level up, so they begin a love tryst with their friend over two days, only have it to end in tragic break up. So they can claim the roleplay XP.


I disagree. Levels and XP are quantifiable values even IC. There are spells that cost XP and so a caster can know how much XP over the last level up he had before casting so many of those spells that they start fizzling. Crafting and a thought bottle gives you the same value. Many spells reference the level of certain creatures, so based on the performance of those spells, a character can also deduce his and their level.

I think you are taking the language used to make the rules work -very- literally inside the game world itself. Is a more valid, and indeed plausible IC explanation not simply that some spells are so strong, that they temporarily require a part of your very being to cast? That you must recover slowly afterwards.

Is it not more plausible that Wizard's consider the HD limits of spells directly relating to the strength of their enemies, rather than some universal value above the enemies heads.
"I do not think Hypnotism will work here! They look too strong for that." Is infinitely preferable to "That guys got 9 Hit Dice, can't use Hypnotism."

Isn't it?

[Andezzar]

I think you are taking the language used to make the rules work -very- literally inside the game world itself. Is a more valid, and indeed plausible IC explanation not simply that some spells are so strong, that they temporarily require a part of your very being to cast? That you must recover slowly afterwards.

Is it not more plausible that Wizard's consider the HD limits of spells directly relating to the strength of their enemies, rather than some universal value above the enemies heads.
"I do not think Hypnotism will work here! They look too strong for that." Is infinitely preferable to "That guys got 9 Hit Dice, can't use Hypnotism."

Isn't it?How they call XP and levels in character is irrelevant, the point is that they are known and quantifiable concepts IC. Whether they call it XP or life force or whatever, they can find out what amount of that life force is required. And scientifically minded wizards probably already have done it. I just used the game terms directly to avoid confusion by adding other terms. The same goes for levels.

[Necrov]

How they call XP and levels in character is irrelevant, the point is that they are known and quantifiable concepts IC. Whether they call it XP or life force or whatever, they can find out what amount of that life force is required. And scientifically minded wizards probably already have done it. I just used the game terms directly to avoid confusion by adding other terms. The same goes for levels.

Not really irrelevant at all. It's the difference between roleplay and 'ROLL'play. I think if you're seriously suggesting that in most cases of a serious functioning fantasy world that people know how much 'XP' their life is worth, exactly to the decimal, and are directly aware that power growth is related to purely killing things or overcoming arbitrary challenges rather than learning, life experience and practice; then I don't think we've been partaking in the same games.

Are Wizards/Sorcerors/X Class aware that certain abilities will require a greater part of their power than others? Absolutely.
Do they have a general idea how far they can use this power that requires so much of them? Probably in vague terms yes.
Is this equivocal to, 'XP is a quantifiable thing that the wider world has knowledge of and can make decisions based upon'? Absolutely not.

So OP, I guess it depends on the way you want to run your game. If you're playing a more (completely)... (I'll use the words "genre savvy" to be charitable) genre savvy game. Then yes, having everyone be aware that XP is a quantifiable thing, is I suppose legitimate. But that has a lot of implications. Suddenly, why is the BBEG bothering with magic doohickeys and womble spoons. The way to ultimate cosmic power is clearly by spamming low risk encounters that are still worth XP and by overcoming puzzles and traps that you've had your similarly levelled friends make but not tell you about.

[Ashtagon]

Even IF you are playing such a genre-savvy game, how would the characters know the NPC is earning XP? Are they casting spells on her to measure her character level? If so, which ones? And wouldn't she find that a bit of an invasion of privacy?

There are no in-game tools or spells that measure the current XP total, short of trying to craft a magic item, which this NPC doesn't seem interested in doing. Short of her dinging a level AND them casting invasive spells to check on her, they won't know she's earning XP.

[Andezzar]

I'm not saying that everyone in the gameworld knows how XP work, but that it is something that a character can find out, just as not everyone knows how quantum mechanics work, it still is something you can find out.

@roleplay vs rollplay: I don't think that is the issue at all. Wizards are generally described as scholarly, academic, scientific types. So it is not far fetched that at least some of them try to quantify XP expenditure etc. With the information provided by spells etc. they have everything they need for that. A world where characters already have done that, will just be closer to Tippyverse than other worlds.

[Necrov]

I'm not saying that everyone in the gameworld knows how XP work, but that it is something that a character can find out, just as not everyone knows how quantum mechanics work, it still is something you can find out.

@roleplay vs rollplay: I don't think that is the issue at all. Wizards are generally described as scholarly, academic, scientific types. So it is not far fetched that at least some of them try to quantify XP expenditure etc. With the information provided by spells etc. they have everything they need for that. A world where characters already have done that, will just be closer to Tippyverse than other worlds.

Personally, I lean toward that XP, HD and other OC terms that appear in spell descriptions are simply terms used to explain how the mechanics behind an ability work. After all, there is absolutely nowhere a Wizard gets given a mechanical description of a spell, as given in books, in the IC world. Yes, a wizard knows how a Fireball works. No they don't know how it works in terms XD6 damage. Why would they? There's no frame of reference for it in the world. It's simply an out of character term used to explain the mechanics. Same goes with HD limits, XP costs and other such things. They're simply terms used to make the mechanics work.

Though, granted, I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's presume that this is like Quantum Mechanics, and only highest level wizards are capable of understanding it and grasping it. The very codified numerical nature of the soul. How is this level 2 party making a decision based upon it then? At a level they'd understand this system, wouldn't it boil down to. "We don't want to share our soul with this party member. So we acknowledge that paying them means we don't have to share our soul." ...Which seems... ridiculous.

That said, whilst playing Devils Advocate. I have just had the idea that an Antagonist could believe he has discovered the numerical nature of all life, and that it is essentially stolen from the beings we kill and creatures we overcome. Which then drives him to want to steal the numerical lifeforce of the worlds beings.

Still, not my cup of tea.

[Nightcanon]

How they call XP and levels in character is irrelevant, the point is that they are known and quantifiable concepts IC. Whether they call it XP or life force or whatever, they can find out what amount of that life force is required. And scientifically minded wizards probably already have done it. I just used the game terms directly to avoid confusion by adding other terms. The same goes for levels.

I think that's highly debateable. PCs will be aware that they are more, or less, powerful than other beings they meet, and spellcasters will be aware whether they do or do not have it in themselves to make the effort to cast a particular spell or craft an item requiring XP expenditure at a particular time, but the notion that they have a numerical understanding of levels, CR, hit dice or XP is faintly ludicrous. It's possible that some research wizard has perfected a spell that accurately quantifies XP, I guess, but why bother doing so?
As to the original question as phrased in the thread title, my answer to this is a clear no: In large part, this is due to the fact that I don't see any in-game way of them making this stipulation ("you may work for us, but you may not learn anything while so doing, even if such work is clearly educational"...). As I say, I don't think that PCs are aware of XP as a concept.
What they can control to some extent is the nature the relationship between themselves and the NPC: they can take her on as an employee under specific conditions, and if those conditions meet the definition of a hireling rather than an NPC ally, then she doesn't earn XP. However, my understanding of the Hireling definition (doing a specific job, for the money rather than because they have a personal interest) means that it's likely that an NPC motivated solely by the money is likely to decline further work the moment they hit their first decent payout ("two years' wages in one day- awesome! that will keep the wolves away from the door for a while") or the first big threat ("thanks for the cash, but today has made me see that adventuring is not for me"). If they are the sort of personality that is interested in adventuring for the same reasons that the PCs do: the fame, the glory, the power, the experience, then they are de facto 'full NPC' and do earn XP, whether the PCs want her to or not

[ericgrau]

If she helps in fights she gets xp. If she hides on sidelines she doesn't.

[TheIronGolem]

Can I sig this?

I'm not really comfortable with the idea that you should have to ask for my permission, but you have it all the same.

[Quertus]

I have had characters in several systems who have, completely in character, investigated so-called OOC concepts like XP, HP, HD, luck, etc. This investigation is usually initiated by my character attempting an action that fails for an "OOC " reason, or them encountering a spell or item with "OOC " triggers / conditions. These characters have often wound up building spells or items to allow them to see their own and others' HP bars / mana bars / xp bars / etc. Several editions of D&D already have similar items built in (well, for the HP, at least).

-----------

Suppose the characters in 3.x don't have any concept of xp...

Who buys powdered blue minotaur horn as an xp component, or sacrifices sentient creatures for crafting xp, when they can create the item just fine without the added cost / step?

How can it be in character to buy an item that reduces xp cost?

How can npc spellcasters correctly price spells with xp costs, if they cannot quantify the amount of xp spent?

Why do people not attempt to craft items the moment they gain access to the requisite spells, even when they don't have enough xp?

-----------

I've roleplayed the 3.x character with no concept of xp. As I believe none of you have ever played with me, I imagine none of you have ever seen a wizard memorize a spell with an expensive xp component, then cast it at a critical moment, only to declare that the spell fails because the caster lacks the required xp.

So don't talk to me about "good role-playing" until you've thought through all the logical consequences of a world where the characters don't conceptualize XP, and been willing to risk a TPK to uphold your beliefs :smallwink:

Because, honestly, I believe that the world runs better when the casters know whether or not they have the requisite xp to cast five consecutive wishes to give someone a +5 inherent bonus. When the shopkeeper can actually produce the magic item they promised, because they know if they have the xp required to create it. But YMMV. If you prefer to play with incompetent casters with no concept of xp, who are constantly failing at spell casting and item creation, and this somehow feels more realistic to you, I'm not going to say you're wrong. But it's certainly not the way I feel the game should run.

--------

So, all that having been said, one would expect me to side with the party, in not wanting the npc taking a share of their xp. I do not.

Even taken at its most direct interpretation, where xp are given on a per kill basis, the party would realize that they learn something every time she coup De graces a foe. It wouldn't feel like she is taking their xp - it would feel like she is giving them xp. Unless the party is fighting a lot of the same thing (this is 3e - nobody fights a lot of anything any more. These whipper snappers with their instant gratification, leveling 100x faster than in real editions of D&D), both with and without her, they would have no way of realizing IC that she was costing them xp.

Sure, there exist advanced treatises on the subject, published by the most learned wizards, that explain, in detail, exactly how earning xp works. But I doubt any of your murder hobos have read said works, or can make the knowledge check required to know this information.

But OOC, they are completely justified in wanting to find an OOC way to not share xp.

I do like the idea of the entire party taking leadership, and then being allowed that many NPCs who are beholden to the party, and who level with the party, without the PCs needing to share their xp.

EDIT: homebrew feat trait (unbalanced prototype): group leadership.
Fluff: due to your group leadership, NPCs learn more when they are with your group.
Benefit: for each member of the party with this trait, one npc (called a "group cohort") is treated like a cohort to the party, leveling when the party levels, without taking a share of the experience. You gain a +1 bonus to charisma-based skill checks when used on group cohorts.
Drawback: You take a -1 penalty to charisma-based skill checks on NPCs who are not group cohorts, except for checks related to turning them into group cohorts. You may not have more NPCs travelling with the party than the number of characters with group leadership. NPCs in the party are still NPCs, not true cohorts (although they will react more favorably to PCs with this talent). A character with group leadership may not take the leadership feat If a character with group leadership gains leadership, or any other related ability, they lose the benefits of group leadership, and all group cohorts will spurn them, complaining that they are "playing favorites".

[Inevitability]

I'm not really comfortable with the idea that you should have to ask for my permission, but you have it all the same.

Well, just assuming everyone is okay with random people copying their words seems a bit presumptive. Glad you gave permission though.

[Kish]

It doesn't matter whether it's RAW--I presume you don't play with drowning healing unless you're running a deliberately silly game. It matters only whether the approach to the game that your players are demonstrating with wanting to do this is behavior you wish to facilitate or disallow.

[Nightcanon]

I have had characters in several systems who have, completely in character, investigated so-called OOC concepts like XP, HP, HD, luck, etc. This investigation is usually initiated by my character attempting an action that fails for an "OOC " reason, or them encountering a spell or item with "OOC " triggers / conditions. These characters have often wound up building spells or items to allow them to see their own and others' HP bars / mana bars / xp bars / etc. Several editions of D&D already have similar items built in (well, for the HP, at least).

-----------

Suppose the characters in 3.x don't have any concept of xp...

Who buys powdered blue minotaur horn as an xp component, or sacrifices sentient creatures for crafting xp, when they can create the item just fine without the added cost / step?

How can it be in character to buy an item that reduces xp cost?

How can npc spellcasters correctly price spells with xp costs, if they cannot quantify the amount of xp spent?

Why do people not attempt to craft items the moment they gain access to the requisite spells, even when they don't have enough xp?

-----------

I've roleplayed the 3.x character with no concept of xp. As I believe none of you have ever played with me, I imagine none of you have ever seen a wizard memorize a spell with an expensive xp component, then cast it at a critical moment, only to declare that the spell fails because the caster lacks the required xp.

So don't talk to me about "good role-playing" until you've thought through all the logical consequences of a world where the characters don't conceptualize XP, and been willing to risk a TPK to uphold your beliefs :smallwink:

Because, honestly, I believe that the world runs better when the casters know whether or not they have the requisite xp to cast five consecutive wishes to give someone a +5 inherent bonus. When the shopkeeper can actually produce the magic item they promised, because they know if they have the xp required to create it. But YMMV. If you prefer to play with incompetent casters with no concept of xp, who are constantly failing at spell casting and item creation, and this somehow feels more realistic to you, I'm not going to say you're wrong. But it's certainly not the way I feel the game should run.

--------

So, all that having been said, one would expect me to side with the party, in not wanting the npc taking a share of their xp. I do not.

Even taken at its most direct interpretation, where xp are given on a per kill basis, the party would realize that they learn something every time she coup De graces a foe. It wouldn't feel like she is taking their xp - it would feel like she is giving them xp. Unless the party is fighting a lot of the same thing (this is 3e - nobody fights a lot of anything any more. These whipper snappers with their instant gratification, leveling 100x faster than in real editions of D&D), both with and without her, they would have no way of realizing IC that she was costing them xp.

Sure, there exist advanced treatises on the subject, published by the most learned wizards, that explain, in detail, exactly how earning xp works. But I doubt any of your murder hobos have read said works, or can make the knowledge check required to know this information.

But OOC, they are completely justified in wanting to find an OOC way to not share xp.

I do like the idea of the entire party taking leadership, and then being allowed that many NPCs who are beholden to the party, and who level with the party, without the PCs needing to share their xp.

EDIT: homebrew feat trait (unbalanced prototype): group leadership.
Fluff: due to your group leadership, NPCs learn more when they are with your group.
Benefit: for each member of the party with this trait, one npc (called a "group cohort") is treated like a cohort to the party, leveling when the party levels, without taking a share of the experience. You gain a +1 bonus to charisma-based skill checks when used on group cohorts.
Drawback: You take a -1 penalty to charisma-based skill checks on NPCs who are not group cohorts, except for checks related to turning them into group cohorts. You may not have more NPCs travelling with the party than the number of characters with group leadership. NPCs in the party are still NPCs, not true cohorts (although they will react more favorably to PCs with this talent). A character with group leadership may not take the leadership feat If a character with group leadership gains leadership, or any other related ability, they lose the benefits of group leadership, and all group cohorts will spurn them, complaining that they are "playing favorites".
There's some middle ground between 'PCs are totally unaware of their reeources and capabilities' wrt XP, HP and so on, and 'PCs have access to a real-time readout of XP etc that is numerically exact to 5 or 6 sf'. I was up late last night, and have a bit of a cold. As a result, I'm aware that I'm not on tip-top form, and am looking to have a quiet day if possible. I might even estimate that I'm operating at 90% of my normal effectiveness, but that is just an estimate, not a detailed analysis based on internal readouts of health, energy and so on (despite the fact that I could go and get my VO2max, working memory, executive function etc measured it I felt so inclined.
I don't see anything wrong with a PC being aware that they aren't currently capable of the effort of casting Wish or creating a +3 sword (but might be up to scribing a couple of scrolls of Magic Missile), but I wouldn't say they have a numerical basis for that feeling.

[Âmesang]

…so how far would such a character have to go to go full-on Deadpool? :smalltongue:

I mean, on the one hand, having a spell that actually lets you "see" an opponent's HP bar is neat; on the other hand, trying to explain this to your teammates would certainly make you look insane. Which, admittedly, would make for an interesting session.

[Quertus]

There's some middle ground between 'PCs are totally unaware of their reeources and capabilities' wrt XP, HP and so on, and 'PCs have access to a real-time readout of XP etc that is numerically exact to 5 or 6 sf'. I was up late last night, and have a bit of a cold. As a result, I'm aware that I'm not on tip-top form, and am looking to have a quiet day if possible. I might even estimate that I'm operating at 90% of my normal effectiveness, but that is just an estimate, not a detailed analysis based on internal readouts of health, energy and so on (despite the fact that I could go and get my VO2max, working memory, executive function etc measured it I felt so inclined.
I don't see anything wrong with a PC being aware that they aren't currently capable of the effort of casting Wish or creating a +3 sword (but might be up to scribing a couple of scrolls of Magic Missile), but I wouldn't say they have a numerical basis for that feeling.

IRL, plenty of people have thought that they were "good to drive home", and been wrong. So I in no way disagree with the idea that it is more realistic to play with characters only having vague ideas of things. I just think it makes for a better game - and better fits the assumptions of the game, like accurate pricing for spellcasting services - for characters to understand the exact values of "OOC" stats.

The logical consequences of indeterminate stats (especially when combined with the general overconfidence most humans possess) include unreliable casters, unreliable services, unreliable crafting, and pricing errors. Unless you are prepared to play with those - and more - in your game, I highly recommend allowing characters to play as though they have full knowledge of "OOC " values and costs.

Even so, this likely only matters to the OP if the PCs have some basis for comparison - if they have fought the same creatures both with and without the NPC's help.


…so how far would such a character have to go to go full-on Deadpool? :smalltongue:

I mean, on the one hand, having a spell that actually lets you "see" an opponent's HP bar is neat; on the other hand, trying to explain this to your teammates would certainly make you look insane. Which, admittedly, would make for an interesting session.

Hmmm... "This rod (the form of the published item, IIRC) allows me to guage the extent of your injuries. Three castings of Lesser Vigor, plus two orisons, should have you completely healed."

"I currently have sufficient mana remaining to cast 217 fireball spells; if I use this artifact to tap into the mama reserves of our prisoners, I can augment that by an additional 52 castings."

Doesn't sound overly insane to me... (insert mad scientist laughter here)

[Devigor]

IRL, plenty of people have thought that they were "good to drive home", and been wrong. So I in no way disagree with the idea that it is more realistic to play with characters only having vague ideas of things. I just think it makes for a better game - and better fits the assumptions of the game, like accurate pricing for spellcasting services - for characters to understand the exact values of "OOC" stats.

The logical consequences of indeterminate stats (especially when combined with the general overconfidence most humans possess) include unreliable casters, unreliable services, unreliable crafting, and pricing errors. Unless you are prepared to play with those - and more - in your game, I highly recommend allowing characters to play as though they have full knowledge of "OOC " values and costs.

Uh... "Vague", when saying that the characters don't know the exact numbers of the XP and HD and such, doesn't mean they don't know how much oomph they can put behind a spell, or how many times they can cast a spell with the given amount of life force/energy/mana/etc. It just means they won't be thinking, "I only need 52 more XP until I level up!" or "She's taking our XP!"

They will understand what they can craft and what spells they can cast. They just don't know that there are a bunch of numbers attached to those things. It doesn't mean they will be unreliable. It means every item crafter won't need a calculator every time they want to make an item. Think of it this way; a master assassin in real life may know how many yards that they can shoot straight with a 1911 pistol or an AK-47. They know how well they can kill at that range. That does not mean they know how many HPs they are knocking off someone when they fire.

Similarly, you can measure how well a sword is made by testing its flexibility and slicing stuff with its edge. You could tell it was masterwork or mundane; that doesn't mean you would know that "masterwork" comes with a +1 enhancement bonus to your attack rolls. You could tell a big difference between a rusty sword and a brand-new blade, but you would not know that the "broken" condition gave you a -2 penalty with that weapon. You'd know it was not worth using compared to a masterwork weapon, and you could even still test the rusty sword to tell what quality it had before, but you'd not see a little -2 sign floating over it.

Again, with crafting magic stuff: the thought bottle represents learning and knowledge equivalents; you would invest the knowledge of crafting whatever specific item you are making into an item during the process. You would know EXACTLY what things to use. You wouldn't attach any knowledge of how to wash your clothes to a magic item that shoots fireballs, you would only attach the knowledge of how to cast a fireball and the other specific and necessary bits of information. You would not know, "this requires 300 XP to craft", but you'd know what things were required IN-CHARACTER.

[Andezzar]

Whether you call the property XP or something else the characters can find out the exact values and compare it to other values for that property. The character might not say a masterwork weapon gets +1 to hit but he can find out that he is 5% more likely to hit his usual sparring partner. The way hitting things work (with a flat failure and success chance for all ACs) does not model the real world well, but it can be observed and studied in the game world and so people could come up with a law that it works exactly that way.

As for the thought bottle the rules do not differentiate XP/knowledge/etc. based on how it was acquired. So in character the crafter could indeed attach his knowledge of washing clothes to an item that shoots fireballs. Either experience is a broad general concept or it is not. The rules tell us that it is and so the characters would behave accordingly. So yes the crafter could go out and slay three more goblins to be able to make the next item. That is just how it works. You can say it is silly but that is just how the designers made the game. The whole concept of people becoming less experienced through making experiences (i.e. making items or casting certain spells) is just as ludicrous whether the characters know the exact value of that experience or not.

[Elxir_Breauer]

In all honesty, as DM you have the final say in that debate, period, end of discussion. It is up to you whether to allow such shenanigans or not, and you can easily just bump the difficulty of encounters to match the party's new capabilities as they all level.

[Nightcanon]

IRL, plenty of people have thought that they were "good to drive home", and been wrong. So I in no way disagree with the idea that it is more realistic to play with characters only having vague ideas of things. I just think it makes for a better game - and better fits the assumptions of the game, like accurate pricing for spellcasting services - for characters to understand the exact values of "OOC" stats.

The logical consequences of indeterminate stats (especially when combined with the general overconfidence most humans possess) include unreliable casters, unreliable services, unreliable crafting, and pricing errors. Unless you are prepared to play with those - and more - in your game, I highly recommend allowing characters to play as though they have full knowledge of "OOC " values and costs.
Hmm. Like I say, I think there's some space between PCs having no self-awareness and having access to their character sheets at will. Things like uniform costing of bought spellcasting services are in my opinion are merely a 'meh, it's good enough' model for how such an economy might work, written by non-experts who were more interested in other aspects of the game, rather than immutable laws of nature, so I wouldn't use them as an immoveable object from which to rules-lawyer myself into a situation where players can manipulate the game to this extent. By all means, allow PCs to know their XP totals if you like, but don't pretend it's the only alternative to a situation whereby they don't know anything. The way I see it, the rules are there to model a world in which heroic fantasy adventures can be had, not define it rigidly to the exclusion of all other considerations. How well they do that is up for debate, of course, but if it gets to the point of PCs trying to stipulate that NPC party members are hireling employees to get an XP boost, I'm going to break the sacred link between items/ services and what the DMG says they cost rather than pursue alternatives ad absurdum.

[Nightcanon]

In all honesty, as DM you have the final say in that debate, period, end of discussion. It is up to you whether to allow such shenanigans or not, and you can easily just bump the difficulty of encounters to match the party's new capabilities as they all level.

I'm envisioning a situation where a party of PCs gains no XP for defeating a monster that has been terrorising a village in return for the last 100gp the village elder has scraped together; the elder, meanwhile, has levelled up from commoner 1 to commoner 1/wizard 9 thanks to the XP boost that single-handedly defeating said monster (with the aid of some hirelings) has provided...

[Necrov]

Hmm. Like I say, I think there's some space between PCs having no self-awareness and having access to their character sheets at will. Things like uniform costing of bought spellcasting services are in my opinion are merely a 'meh, it's good enough' model for how such an economy might work, written by non-experts who were more interested in other aspects of the game, rather than immutable laws of nature, so I wouldn't use them as an immoveable object from which to rules-lawyer myself into a situation where players can manipulate the game to this extent. By all means, allow PCs to know their XP totals if you like, but don't pretend it's the only alternative to a situation whereby they don't know anything. The way I see it, the rules are there to model a world in which heroic fantasy adventures can be had, not define it rigidly to the exclusion of all other considerations. How well they do that is up for debate, of course, but if it gets to the point of PCs trying to stipulate that NPC party members are hireling employees to get an XP boost, I'm going to break the sacred link between items services and what the DMG says they cost rather than pursue alternatives ad absurdum.

Nightcanon hits the nail on the head for me. Trying to pretend that the only two options are;
1) No ones know -anything- at all, the economy doesn't work (actually it doesn't work regardless, but you probably appreciate the point) and everyone has to guess how many wishes they can cast.
2) Everyone must have exact access understanding to the terms used on their character sheets. After all, these terms are mentioned in spell descriptions and crafting!

Is absurd. The example Nightcanon used earlier is far more sensible. Players should have an idea of the limitations of their power but not be able to quantify it in exact numerical power to the decimal places. He's also right to point out that there are situations in real life where you gauge a situation wrong too. "I am definitely sober enough to walk the ten miles home. No problem." And then subsequently wake up in a bush 300 yards up the road.

Once again isn't...
"I'm afraid friends, I don't think I have the power in me to cast another Wish. I think it may be some time before I'm feeling up to it again."

Preferable to...
"Nah guys. I can't cast Wish, I haven't got enough XP left. We need to go kill some things."

[Andezzar]

It is not about the terms but about the concepts behind the terms. Whether they call it farming XP or making more experiences (obviously the latter is the more plausible phrasing in game), the characters know that they have to beat more encounters - simply spending time (as your first conversation suggests) does not help.

[Necrov]

It is not about the terms but about the concepts behind the terms. Whether they call it farming XP or making more experiences (obviously the latter is the more plausible phrasing in game), the characters know that they have to beat more encounters - simply spending time (as your first conversation suggests) does not help.

There is absolutely no requirement for the character to understand the concepts behind the terms. In the first example, time could be representative of any action. Significant roleplay, further adventuring, difficult research. All of which in the right circumstances can give XP. All a player needs to know is that the previous castings have taken too much of his latent powers and he is unable to cast the spell.

Similarly with HD. All a character -actually- needs to know is that some enemies will be too powerful for some of their minor spells (For example, Hypnotism) to work.

You need not quantify it in any like for like way at all.

And the characters certainly don't have to know they need to beat more encounters. The players might think they do (but hey if that's the goal their aiming for, I'm not running my games right). But the characters can have whatever goals they want. To kill X and get the Womblespoon of Justice.

[Âmesang]

Hmmm... "This rod (the form of the published item, IIRC) allows me to guage the extent of your injuries. Three castings of Lesser Vigor, plus two orisons, should have you completely healed."

"I currently have sufficient mana remaining to cast 217 fireball spells; if I use this artifact to tap into the mama reserves of our prisoners, I can augment that by an additional 52 castings."

Doesn't sound overly insane to me... (insert mad scientist laughter here)
Come to think of it it might work really well if used by a warforged or similar construct like inevitables.

[Andezzar]

There is absolutely no requirement for the character to understand the concepts behind the terms. In the first example, time could be representative of any action. Significant roleplay, further adventuring, difficult research. All of which in the right circumstances can give XP. All a player needs to know is that the previous castings have taken too much of his latent powers and he is unable to cast the spell.

Similarly with HD. All a character -actually- needs to know is that some enemies will be too powerful for some of their minor spells (For example, Hypnotism) to work.

You need not quantify it in any like for like way at all. Sure, they don't have to know and act based on that knowledge, I merely mean that all the necessary information is available in character and so it is not metagaming to have the characters act accordingly.


And the characters certainly don't have to know they need to beat more encounters. The players might think they do (but hey if that's the goal their aiming for, I'm not running my games right). But the characters can have whatever goals they want. To kill X and get the Womblespoon of Justice.What sources of XP are there besides encounters? All the other awards are entirely at the whim of the DM and so for those we don't even know how the presence of hirelings or NPCs would affect them.

[Quertus]

Nightcanon hits the nail on the head for me. Trying to pretend that the only two options are;
1) No ones know -anything- at all, the economy doesn't work (actually it doesn't work regardless, but you probably appreciate the point) and everyone has to guess how many wishes they can cast.
2) Everyone must have exact access understanding to the terms used on their character sheets. After all, these terms are mentioned in spell descriptions and crafting!

Is absurd. The example Nightcanon used earlier is far more sensible. Players should have an idea of the limitations of their power but not be able to quantify it in exact numerical power to the decimal places. He's also right to point out that there are situations in real life where you gauge a situation wrong too. "I am definitely sober enough to walk the ten miles home. No problem." And then subsequently wake up in a bush 300 yards up the road.

Once again isn't...
"I'm afraid friends, I don't think I have the power in me to cast another Wish. I think it may be some time before I'm feeling up to it again."

Preferable to...
"Nah guys. I can't cast Wish, I haven't got enough XP left. We need to go kill some things."

You've erroneously conflated two concepts here; namely, correctly knowing ones capabilities, and using OOC terms.

Isn't "I've got a lot of power left, but not enough to cast wish", preferable to, "i'm confident I have the XP to cast whatever you need (but, unbeknownst to the caster, he doesn't have enough xp to cast wish)"? When fighting the tarrasque, I'd hope for the former, personally.

The question really, really is binary: are characters correctly aware of their capabilities, or not?

To suggest otherwise seems to miss the point.

[Nightcanon]

You've erroneously conflated two concepts here; namely, correctly knowing ones capabilities, and using OOC terms.

Isn't "I've got a lot of power left, but not enough to cast wish", preferable to, "i'm confident I have the XP to cast whatever you need (but, unbeknownst to the caster, he doesn't have enough xp to cast wish)"? When fighting the tarrasque, I'd hope for the former, personally.

The question really, really is binary: are characters correctly aware of their capabilities, or not?

To suggest otherwise seems to miss the point.

Andezzar suggests that XP other numerical concepts used to model the imaginary gameworld are explicitly quantifiable in character, while in the 3rd section of your long post you suggest that such quantification is implied by the economic model of D&D3.5. It's not a matter of OOC terminology. What I am suggesting is that while a PC might know he doesn't have the personal resources to achieve something at present, he doesn't know how much he's lacking, or whether a good sleep and another try tomorrow will do the trick. You and Andezzar seem to be suggesting that PCs have inherent knowledge that they need X more [arbitrarily-named units of experience known to players as XP] to be able to do it, and that in-game logic suggests that PCs know the numerical values of their XP, HP and other stats. It's like you are taking Roy's comment to Sylvia that it would be weird not knowing what a skill point is, and taking that as a serious interpretation of what PCs know rather than a 4th-wall joke.
In my view, PCs are as aware of their capabilities as we in the real world are.
I'm a paediatrician. Over the course of tens of thousands of hours' training I've sited literally thousands of IVs in patients ranging in size from 400 grams (<1 lb) to 120kg (~260lb) and have performed hundreds of other procedures that require the accurate placement of a needle tip in a small space. I can be reasonably confident that I can do such things proficiently, but I can't quote you my Dex score, my Perform (medical procedure) skill rank, or my Knowledge (surface anatomy), or quantify my 'Experience' accurately. If I say that I am 95% confident I can do a procedure, that's not because I know that I only fail that particular DC on a natural 1, it's merely an estimate. I am 'correctly aware of my abilities' as you put it, but not to the extent that I know specific numbers. If I were to play a D20 game of 'Hospitals and Healthcare' in my spare time, I wouldn't assume that my PC was aware of such values either, because such an assumption would spoil the verisimilitude that you (rather oddly in my view) seem to think relies on it.
So yes, PCs are aware of their capabilities, but not in terms of "I am 456 XP short of 7th level", or "my chances of hitting that Bugbear are 85%, with 10% contributed by my +2 dex modifier, 30% by my BAB from 6 ranger levels and +5% from my magic longbow" (and nor do they know, IC, that the specifics of their hiring procedures might affect how much XP they and their employee will gain from this fight).

[Andezzar]

Assuming the character is only capable of saying that he is at the moment not able to cast wish because he does not have the spell prepared again and he does not have enough XP. I'm pretty sure he knows that having the spell prepared is a necessary condition, but how will he know he has sufficient XP to cast the spell? Is he supposed to try until it works? Does he even know how he can improve his chances (i.e. what actions grant XP)?

I really hope you don't have a 5% failure rate at setting an IV.

[ahenobarbi]

Just go with what you think will result in most fun for you & the party.

On XP & stuff like that: by rules they are discoverable but I think that it's safe to say that it wasn't. Or wasn't understood fully. There are few with necessary tools and they tend to have more pressing matters to attend (saving world, ruling empires and the like). In addition I think it's safe to say that rules of the game are simpliiedy to model battles and rules as they would be for accuretly modeling scientific research in those matters would be vastly more complex and harder to discover.

[Sliver]

Assuming the character is only capable of saying that he is at the moment not able to cast wish because he does not have the spell prepared again and he does not have enough XP. I'm pretty sure he knows that having the spell prepared is a necessary condition, but how will he know he has sufficient XP to cast the spell? Is he supposed to try until it works? Does he even know how he can improve his chances (i.e. what actions grant XP)?

I really hope you don't have a 5% failure rate at setting an IV.

How will you know you're not hungry unless you try to eat more?

These numbers are abstractions that are used to make the game work. Is it an actual problem for people to imagine how the characters can operate without knowing these exact numbers themselves? If these abstractions aren't okay, where do you stop? Do battles in-world actually go by turns?

You know that you don't have enough XP for Wish because you are an experienced wizard that knows the toll it takes on you and that you currently can't handle it.

[NichG]

When you have perfect knowledge, it becomes difficult to understand those who do not. As players of the game, we have perfect knowledge about how the game works - we can just read it, we don't have to learn it through life experiences. So we don't have good judgement about what those who had to figure things out on their own would actually be aware of and what they wouldn't.

So to really make this question clear, I'd propose an experiment. One person DMs a completely new, homebrew game system for a group of players. Those players are not told the rules and character generation is done via an in-character interview rather than putting numbers on paper. The DM simply narrates the outcomes of what the players declare they are doing, but does not give any explicit indication of numbers or details behind what happens that the characters would not be aware of.

Play a few sessions of this kind of game, and then ask yourself what you've been able to figure out explicitly and what you haven't, as well as what aspects of figuring things out is actually necessary for you to function in the world (e.g. not being able to has caused you to have characters die or fail at their tasks or whatever), versus what is convenient to know but turned out to not be important in detail.

[Andezzar]

How will you know you're not hungry unless you try to eat more?

These numbers are abstractions that are used to make the game work. Is it an actual problem for people to imagine how the characters can operate without knowing these exact numbers themselves? If these abstractions aren't okay, where do you stop? Do battles in-world actually go by turns?

You know that you don't have enough XP for Wish because you are an experienced wizard that knows the toll it takes on you and that you currently can't handle it.Hunger, tiredness etc. are biological functions where our bodies give our minds feedback. Spellcasting and especially the need for XP for certain spells have no real world analogue. We have no indication that there is some organic feedback for knowing how much XP is needed. So either the character knows that 5000 XP is enough to cast wish and 4999 XP is not or he does not know at all, you cannot have it both ways.

As for combat taking place in rounds, That is what the rules tell us.
Characters act in order from highest initiative result to lowest, with the check applying to all rounds of the combat.
A character is flat-footed until he or she takes an action. So either you play the game or you use houserules. Being unable to defend one's self before having acted in combat is also not "realistic" so do you scrap that rule as well?


When you have perfect knowledge, it becomes difficult to understand those who do not. As players of the game, we have perfect knowledge about how the game works - we can just read it, we don't have to learn it through life experiences. So we don't have good judgement about what those who had to figure things out on their own would actually be aware of and what they wouldn't.

So to really make this question clear, I'd propose an experiment. One person DMs a completely new, homebrew game system for a group of players. Those players are not told the rules and character generation is done via an in-character interview rather than putting numbers on paper. The DM simply narrates the outcomes of what the players declare they are doing, but does not give any explicit indication of numbers or details behind what happens that the characters would not be aware of.

Play a few sessions of this kind of game, and then ask yourself what you've been able to figure out explicitly and what you haven't, as well as what aspects of figuring things out is actually necessary for you to function in the world (e.g. not being able to has caused you to have characters die or fail at their tasks or whatever), versus what is convenient to know but turned out to not be important in detail.That is very difficult because with such a freeform game you don't even know if there is method to the DM's "madness". He could just be arbitrarily deciding what works and what doesn't. D&D however has laws governing magic just like the real world has natural laws. What they are can be found out by people. And people will often do if such laws impact them. Knowing when a wizard can cast a certain spell again, probably is quite important for him.

[NichG]

That is very difficult because with such a freeform game you don't even know if there is method to the DM's "madness". He could just be arbitrarily deciding what works and what doesn't.

This is the point of the exercise. There are no guarantees of anything. However, there may be patterns that, sometimes, recur. This is what a person living in a world has to deal with that a player standing outside the world can't see.

In the real world we had no apriori guarantee that there was any method to anything. Some people concluded that there wasn't and stopped trying. Others hypothesized that there was and got the details wrong, so it didn't work. But over a few thousand years we found some reliable patterns.

That's what would have to happen 'in character' for the laws to be found out by people. I'm not saying it would or wouldn't happen, just that we can't answer that question reliably from the point of view of people who can read the rulebook and know with certainty that it's 100% true.

In the experimental game, there would likely be things important to you that you'd figure out, but others that you'd fail to figure out even though they were important. Actually trying is a way to get perspective on that possibility.

[Nightcanon]

Assuming the character is only capable of saying that he is at the moment not able to cast wish because he does not have the spell prepared again and he does not have enough XP. I'm pretty sure he knows that having the spell prepared is a necessary condition, but how will he know he has sufficient XP to cast the spell? Is he supposed to try until it works? Does he even know how he can improve his chances (i.e. what actions grant XP)?

I really hope you don't have a 5% failure rate at setting an IV.I would rule that he knows he isn't currently capable of casting Wish, so doesn't bother memorising it today, and doesn't feel up to crafting magic items either.
My point regarding medical procedures was an attempt to suggest that, like real-world folks, PCs in TRPGs experience tasks as a series of things that they attempt and either succed or fail at, not as a sequence of d20 rolls from which they can infer the 5% graduations in difficulty for all things. It certainly wasn't intended to be an invitation for you to make snippy comments about my professional competence.

[Andezzar]

This is the point of the exercise. There are no guarantees of anything. However, there may be patterns that, sometimes, recur. This is what a person living in a world has to deal with that a player standing outside the world can't see.

In the real world we had no apriori guarantee that there was any method to anything. Some people concluded that there wasn't and stopped trying. Others hypothesized that there was and got the details wrong, so it didn't work. But over a few thousand years we found some reliable patterns.

That's what would have to happen 'in character' for the laws to be found out by people. I'm not saying it would or wouldn't happen, just that we can't answer that question reliably from the point of view of people who can read the rulebook and know with certainty that it's 100% true.

In the experimental game, there would likely be things important to you that you'd figure out, but others that you'd fail to figure out even though they were important. Actually trying is a way to get perspective on that possibility.Fair point, but in the gameworld the character would not have to do it alone. Generations of D&D wizards will already have figured some stuff out, and will probably have taught it to the next generation. They also might not have perfect knowledge of everything, but they would surely have a vested interest in knowing how their profession works.


I would rule that he knows he isn't currently capable of casting Wish, so doesn't bother memorising it today, and doesn't feel up to crafting magic items either. But how does he know when he is again capable of casting wish or crafting a particular magic item?


My point regarding medical procedures was an attempt to suggest that, like real-world folks, PCs in TRPGs experience tasks as a series of things that they attempt and either succed or fail at, not as a sequence of d20 rolls from which they can infer the 5% graduations in difficulty for all things. It certainly wasn't intended to be an invitation for you to make snippy comments about my professional competence.This is less about success or failure, but knowing when trying is pointless. If you know you cannot do something now, you must know what is required to be able to do it, or you never know when you will be able to do it. So you now have three options for the game:

The characters do not know what they need to cast wish beyond preparing the spell, but then they shouldn't know that they can't at the moment either.
Something tells them when they are again capable of casting wish.
The characters do know that they need a certain amount of XP (or whatever you want to call it in character).


I see no reason why the knowledge of an XP requirement should be treated any different than knowing that walking away from a foe (in game terms moving out of a threatened square) is a bad idea.

There is absolutely no indication that number two is the case.

There is also that little spell called identify. It tells you how a magic item, like a scroll of wish, works. So now the wizard not only knows that he needs XP to cast it, but also that some wishes are safe and others aren't.

[NichG]

An in world RAW only form might be - wizards have no intrinsic way to know for sure if they can afford to cast Wish until they try. However, they do know that sometimes it can fail, that casting it makes it more likely that the next casting will fail, once a casting fails an immediate second attempt will fail, and that given a sufficient interval, a wizard who failed to cast it will become able to cast it again.

If they're very perceptive (and, given the rarity of 17+the level wizards in the demographics, both lucky and long-lived), they might discover that wizards who adventure become able to cast Wish again more rapidly on average than those who don't. But that already would require lots of observations of very rare characters.

They may also find a connection to item crafting success and failure - casting a wish may make item crafting fail. Crafting an item may make casting a wish fail. This may give them a very crude estimate of relative XP amounts. However, since XP gain rate is variable and may occur in lumps at arbitrary times, I would be surprised if this ever got more precise than a factor of 2 or so, and that only after hundreds of observations.

At the end of all this, a wizard in training will probably be told to craft a number of small items to exhaust themselves and estimate their fill rate as a way to estimate if they're safe to cast Wish or other draining spells. They might know that it takes about 2 months after a wish to be safe for the next, or other such estimates. At higher levels of skill, burning divinations to be sure would be an easy trick.

[Sliver]

As for combat taking place in rounds, That is what the rules tell us. So either you play the game or you use houserules. Being unable to defend one's self before having acted in combat is also not "realistic" so do you scrap that rule as well?

I don't know if you are purposefully misrepresenting what I have written, or you actually have no idea how to separate between game mechanics and in-world concepts.

No, I absolutely DM using the rounds mechanic. But the characters, within the world, don't stand around and wait while others act, because for them, everything happens at the same time. The round system is created to make things easier to handle, not to simulate reality.

Since each turn takes 6 seconds, and the entire round takes 6 seconds as well, I don't see how you can think that combat operates with this system within the reality of the game.

[Andezzar]

I don't know if you are purposefully misrepresenting what I have written, or you actually have no idea how to separate between game mechanics and in-world concepts.

No, I absolutely DM using the rounds mechanic. But the characters, within the world, don't stand around and wait while others act, because for them, everything happens at the same time. The round system is created to make things easier to handle, not to simulate reality.

Since each turn takes 6 seconds, and the entire round takes 6 seconds as well, I don't see how you can think that combat operates with this system within the reality of the game.If everything took place at the same time for the characters, why is there a difference between those two scenarios: Characters A and B are adjacent and hostile to one another.
Scenario 1: Character A has initiative 15 and makes a full attack against B, at initiative 10 B makes a full withdrawal.
Scenario 2: Character B has initiative 15 and makes a full withdrawal, at initiative 10 A charges B and gets only one attack (no pounce).

Saying that everything in 6 seconds happens simultaneously or overlaps makes little sense and the game mechanics don't support it either. If everything overlapped anyways, there would be no difference between a casting time of one Full-Round Action and 1 Full Round.

As I said earlier there is the spell identify which gives you all the information on a magic item, in character you may phrase it more genre appropriately but the information is there.

[NichG]

Costing XP is not a magical property of a scroll of Wish, so you would not learn that from Identify. In fact, Wish on a scroll is distinct from the spell in normal usage in that it cannot be used in ways which would cost additional XP.

Scribe Scroll: Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when scribing the scroll.

Since that cannot be changed once the scroll is made, the Wish on a scroll can't be used to e.g. create a magic item.

[Andezzar]

Right, but you get quite a bit of information about XP by identifying a thought bottle. Also learning the wish spell should get you that information just as you get the information that you need bat guano for a fireball.

[Sliver]

If everything took place at the same time for the characters, why is there a difference between those two scenarios: Characters A and B are adjacent and hostile to one another.
Scenario 1: Character A has initiative 15 and makes a full attack against B, at initiative 10 B makes a full withdrawal.
Scenario 2: Character B has initiative 15 and makes a full withdrawal, at initiative 10 A charges B and gets only one attack (no pounce).

Saying that everything in 6 seconds happens simultaneously or overlaps makes little sense and the game mechanics don't support it either. If everything overlapped anyways, there would be no difference between a casting time of one Full-Round Action and 1 Full Round.

As I said earlier there is the spell identify which gives you all the information on a magic item, in character you may phrase it more genre appropriately but the information is there.

So you actually can't separate between how the mechanics work for the sake of making the game work, and how things work within the reality of the game itself. Good to know.

Yes, the rules sometimes create unrealistic results. That's because they aren't perfect. It doesn't mean that the world itself works that way, just that it is how you handle it.

Maybe you want to check page 24 of the DMG.


When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occurring simultaneously. [...]
However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result.

[Andezzar]

I can differentiate the two, but I think the rules of the game should describe what the characters do, you are playing a game after all, not that you should let the characters do whatever you say and maybe the rules fit what you decided.

[NichG]

Right, but you get quite a bit of information about XP by identifying a thought bottle. Also learning the wish spell should get you that information just as you get the information that you need bat guano for a fireball.

In both cases, nowhere in the rules does it specify the form of the information that you get (nor for that matter does it actually specify that a wizard knows how to cast their own spells). Thought Bottle's 'everything about its magical properties' could just as well be: "You can store your level of skill and expertise as you are now, to be retrieved later, but in doing so a small portion is lost." as it could be a sequence of text in English directly from the rule book (which the wizard might be confused at if he only speaks Common). It's left undefined.

I'm being a stickler about this because if you really want to argue RAW, you have to take the bad with the good even if it means there's no game left afterwards. It's a nuclear option. Point being, rules are intrinsically an exercise in approximation. You're always implicitly obeying a 'benefit of the doubt' that the rules should make sense and should lend themselves to the end of game being possible and hopefully fun. But its very easy to mistake 'it would make sense to me that...' for 'the rules insist that...'

[Devigor]

I can differentiate the two, but I think the rules of the game should describe what the characters do, you are playing a game after all, not that you should let the characters do whatever you say and maybe the rules fit what you decided.

Actually, the PHB and DMG, and all sorts of splatbooks, imply exactly that. :smalltongue:

In fact, it may say it outright using other words. I'm AFB at the moment, but the intent of D&D is to let the players play their characters. The rules are there to adjudicate the results of what those characters try to do; if there isn't a rule to fit, the game strongly suggests you either use something else that works from the game, or make up new rules.

[Quertus]

If I were to play a D20 game of 'Hospitals and Healthcare' in my spare time, I wouldn't assume that my PC was aware of such values either, because such an assumption would spoil the verisimilitude that you (rather oddly in my view) seem to think relies on it.


Thank you for taking the time to express your understanding of my PoV so clearly. Although I could respond more, you seem to mostly understand my position. I mostly was concerned with whether or not characters understand their capabilities. However, if the above was directed at me, I should reiterate that I agree with you that the game feels more realistic when characters do not know their stats.

Unfortunately, the game works more poorly as a game when players do not have their characters act as though they understand certain things, like what they can and cannot accomplish.

Having played with people who would consider it bad role-playing if you didn't have your sorcerer continue trying to cast spells, even when they were out of appropriate slots, I can say that, while I understand the concept, such games are not as fun for me, and, IME, are the exception rather than the rule.


When you have perfect knowledge, it becomes difficult to understand those who do not. As players of the game, we have perfect knowledge about how the game works - we can just read it, we don't have to learn it through life experiences. So we don't have good judgement about what those who had to figure things out on their own would actually be aware of and what they wouldn't.

So to really make this question clear, I'd propose an experiment. One person DMs a completely new, homebrew game system for a group of players. Those players are not told the rules and character generation is done via an in-character interview rather than putting numbers on paper. The DM simply narrates the outcomes of what the players declare they are doing, but does not give any explicit indication of numbers or details behind what happens that the characters would not be aware of.

Play a few sessions of this kind of game, and then ask yourself what you've been able to figure out explicitly and what you haven't, as well as what aspects of figuring things out is actually necessary for you to function in the world (e.g. not being able to has caused you to have characters die or fail at their tasks or whatever), versus what is convenient to know but turned out to not be important in detail.

Been there, done that - from both sides of the screen.

When characters are dedicated to understand the system (as opposed to, say, playing the game*), they can usually determine most of the underlying rules fairly easily.

Some systems, such as WoD, generate some rather strange probability tables which only approximate the underlying rules when played blind. Even so, it is enough to act "genre savvy" in most situations.

And that's without using any cool toys, like divination. "How many scrolls of sleep can I currently scribe?"

When the rules get in the way of the game - as is often the case when the rules are obfuscated, and especially when obfuscated rules directly impact play - the game suffers.

Also, consider that we, as players, do not have perfect knowledge. In fact, in some ways, our characters have more knowledge than we do. For example, our characters have the details of the spell formulae in hand; we only have descriptions of its effects. They can remember seeing and feeling things about which we receive only third person descriptions. So don't forget characters' advantages when evaluating their capabilities.

*with a good GM, and an interesting system, I an perfectly happy making "learn the system through experimentation" be the game. Not everyone enjoys such experimental science.

[NichG]

Also, consider that we, as players, do not have perfect knowledge. In fact, in some ways, our characters have more knowledge than we do. For example, our characters have the details of the spell formulae in hand; we only have descriptions of its effects. They can remember seeing and feeling things about which we receive only third person descriptions. So don't forget characters' advantages when evaluating their capabilities.

Andezzar's argument boiled down to 'if the rules don't specify something, it doesn't exist', which is basically coming from a point of view where really the players do have perfect knowledge by definition. There aren't any spell formulae to be examined in detail, characters don't have senses that the rules don't give them, etc. That extreme was being used as an argument via absurdity - either you let characters know what the players know, or nothing works.

If we assume players have imperfect information, almost all of this debate goes away, because while players may be quibbling about hireling rules and whether someone is a hireling or a henchman and if that changes the XP gain, the DM can just say 'uhhuh, thats a nice idea and all, but that's not actually how it works in the game world; this is one of those cases where the rules get it wrong'. Which is what happens in practice, really.


*with a good GM, and an interesting system, I an perfectly happy making "learn the system through experimentation" be the game. Not everyone enjoys such experimental science

Yes, this kind of game is quite fun. IME, sometimes people figure things out and sometimes they don't. Often there's one player who really figures stuff out rapidly, and then the rest of the players may or may not actually believe them or listen to them :smallsmile:

Going from a heuristic 'genre-savvy' level to a quantitative level is a big jump though. For example, I was in a game where we basically had to figure out the entire magic system through experimentation and trial and error. We relatively easily figured out things like 'elemental metals treated with aether and then placed within a gold ring manifest unique effects' - tin animates objects and binds them to the user's will, aluminum makes things lighter, copper creates an electric discharge, etc. But I wouldn't've been able to say without trying e.g. whether a staff tipped with a copper zapper would have done more or less damage than if I had used tin to animate a bear trap and have it attack the opponent.

[Quertus]

But I wouldn't've been able to say without trying e.g. whether a staff tipped with a copper zapper would have done more or less damage than if I had used tin to animate a bear trap and have it attack the opponent.

That is a relatively easy matter of feeding each attack a few hundred cows. And feasting on the burgers.

[NichG]

That is a relatively easy matter of feeding each attack a few hundred cows. And feasting on the burgers.

I count that as 'trying it', you know.

[Honest Tiefling]

She is basically the driving force of the campaign, at the start anyway. She is on a mission and needs the PC to aid them. Whenever the PCs are stuck or don't know what to do, she is the one that advances the game.

She is however, optional. The adventure path clearly stated that. The PCs want her around because... they're basically one level higher than murder hobos, and get stuck on what to do, but they don't want their XP taken. I have complete confidence that the PCs can complete the adventure even if Torrent is stuck at level 2 forever. She's a cleric btw, with items that help the PCs like potion of endure elements and such.

On one hand NPCs aren't supposed to advance in level or soak XP right? On the other hand the adventure path clearly specified that any NPCs that aid the PCs in battle take an equal share of the XP.

I might have gotten a bit lost on the debate here, but if I understand the problem, the players certainly enjoy the hack n' slash aspect of the game. Bringing the NPC along is threatening this, as it reduces their power, which is vital to their fun. Given the constant mentioning of murder-hoboing, I am going to assume they're not roleplayers, or it is a minor part of their fun. Then the next logical question is, is running Torrent fun for the DM? It seems like they are treating the NPC as a resource, not a character. If running Torrent is not vital to the DM's fun, I would make a ruling that if they don't want NPCs to take XP, they can only have the one at a time. It will be run by the DM and act as support in battle, and will leave and join the party when the DM says they do. If they desire cohorts/companions/etc., they can take a class to gain one or get the Leadership feat.

Is the slight bump in XP/resources really going to mess up the game? I really doubt it, even with the boost to healing. But it seems like getting more shinies to play with and more experience might appeal to this crowd of folks, rules be darned.