DMs - a druid question

[Sejs]

I'd give you Cool Factor and Good Idea exp, but not full combat CR exp. You wern't at any risk and you didn't expend a significant portion of your personal resources in accomplishing the task. The way I see it, is combat exp (most often in the form of a critter's CR) reflects what your character learn from that conflict - how to fight against a large opponent in X circumstances and Y conditions, how to better channel magic while under duress and so on.

I wouldn't give full combat exp for barring the doors then lighting a barracks of soldiers on fire.
I wouldn't give full combat exp for an assassin death attacking a target with a crossbow when the target was unaware of the threat.
I wouldn't give full combat exp for killing someone with a save-or-die spell in the supprise round.
I wouldn't give full combat exp for raining lightning down on giants at night when you're an owl high in the sky.

But some exp, definitly.

 

[Trickstergod]

Truth be told, I'm having a bit of a quandary here.

On the one hand, the druid acted with tactics and intelligence.

On the other, the encounter seemed rather easy because of that.

Then again, if the character just waded into semi-direct combat with the giants, and won, wouldn't it be worth the full XP?

Then again, if the druid just waded into a position that the giants could smack him, when he didn't need to, he was acting like a moron.

If a DM would have awarded the character full XP for going toe to toe with the giants and winning, then quite simply, the druid should get full XP for having defeated the giants without going toe to toe with them - possibly more. After all, stupidity should not be rewarded, whereas intelligence should be.

Personally, I think I'd go with reduced XP for both circumstances. Reduced more for the character actually stupidly and needlessly risking himself, reduced less for being smart about it. Stupidity shouldn't be rewarded over playing strategically. That's what should really decide whether the druid receives XP or not. Whether he would for being stupid, as well. If not, well, then maybe the druid shouldn't get any XP for being smart, either. If, on the other hand, a dumb character would have gained XP for beating the giants, a smart one most certainly should earn just as much.

 

[Nifft]

I'd give you full XP.

I give full XP for overcoming the problem, though. If you have to defeat an orc army, you get just as many XP for assassinating the political leader(s) who motivate the conflict as you do for destroying the army's supply lines, or for creating a treaty with the leader(s), which is just as much as you'd get for killing the general in single combat, or inflicting such high losses on the foot-soldiers that the army is forced to give up.

I also give extra XP for taking risks, especially for taking risks for the benefit of others, but that's separate from the main XP of overcoming problems.

-- Nifft

 

[Sir Whiskers]

In my current campaign, I award XP for accomplishments, not body count. If eliminating those hill giants was necessary, you'd get full xp for the achievement (and probably a bonus hero point for coming up with such an effective plan). If, on the other hand, your character just killed them because he could, no xp at all.

 

[Sejs]

*nod* I don't give exp for body count - I give exp for learning.

That, and cool stuff, because it then encourages more cool stuff.

 

[Carnifex]

Also, attacking giants from range isn't necessarily as safe as it sounds if they get within range to hurl stone and rocks at you...

 

[schporto]

I'd say full XP. And for those who say less, I'm wondering do you give less in other circumstances:
A wizard hiding 600 feet away and firing away with fireballs. The wiz just has to be able to see and point.
A rogue who sets up a nifty traps to take them out one by one.
What about the fighter who came up and successfully intimidated them into leaving?
How about pulling a trick outta the DM's bag - split the group of giants up. I never understood all the reasons why a group would split up, but in theory they should be applicable to the giants too. What kind of exp do you give for that each PC is now taking on a ECL 7, not ECL 10, but the party is taking on a ECL 10.
If a party lays an ambush for these giants - does that mean they deserve less exp?

I think good tactics should be rewarded just like bad tactics. The punishment for bad tactics is an increased death rate, more down time, increased heal spell usage, etc. Good tactics allow you to accomplish the most with the least effort.

Then again I do have points for the actual situation:
Why didn't the giants run away? I mean your spell (by my understanding) covers roughly 600 feet of space.
And you couldn't turn into an owl - they're tiny. Eagle you could do though.
-cpd

 

[Nightfall]

Just give him the full XP and next time use Lighting elementals.

 

[Umbran]

This is also why I HATE the XP for killing things standard that D&D takes. Give XP for accomplishing goals and missions, and for good roleplaying, not for simply killing monsters.

If you think of the goals and missions as small - on the scale of encounters - then the game does do this.

DMG, pg 165: "As the DM, you must decide when a challenge is overcome. Usually, htis is simple to do. DId the PCs defeat teh enemy in battle? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points. Other times it can be trickier. Suppose the PCs sneak by the sleeping minotaur to get into the magical vault - did they overcome the minotaur encounter? If their goal was to get into the vault and the minotaur was just a guardian, then the answer is probably yes. It's up to you to make such judgements."

So, setting the standard of XP for killing is in the hands of the DM, not the game itself. The game recognizes that this is the stance many GMs will take, but it certainly gives other standards for you to follow as well.

 

[cerberus2112]

Sounds too simple

Did the Hill Giants react to the attack. I'd have them split up, and search for the Druid; after all they have 10 minutes between lightning bolts. They may well start hiding (if your hundreds of feet away, even Hill Giants could hide with some effectiveness, even out in the open) and sneaking around. Especially in a dark and stormy night how did you see them to target them with the lightning? Worst comes to worst, the Hill Giants find someone else whom they can grab and use as hostages against this druid, hooing that such an action will make the druid question his actions. This isn't shooting fish in a barrel, or at least it shouldn't be; they're thinking creatures, and even if they are too stupid to come up with any of these tactics they could scream and run away from the frightening attacks. What's the area of effect for Call Lightning anyway; I can't believe it will let you chase them anywhere they go!