Druid CR

[atomn]

.......unrelated note, but I DEMAND that we get stats for Dire Wombats and Dire Koalas! And, while someone's at it, Dire Mongooses, Porcupines, and Toads!!!

...Of course, a Dire Toad would probably be size Small or Tiny, and still weaker than a housecat in D&D.

Monster Manual II has a Medium sized dire toad in it! A Dire Porcupine would be really neat.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

So, in theory, one could take out enough animal companions that the druid himself isn't worth any XP. Or negative XP. "Run away! If we defeat him, we'll lose a level!"

Actually, no. I realize (or hope!) that you were just trying to be funny here, but just in case you weren't ...

If the druid has a chance to regain a new animal companion, then they have completely reconstituted all the parts that the druid class should have.

In other words:

1. Fight Druid and Animal Companion Together - Full druid XP

2. Fight Animal Companion Seperately - Give party XP for the animal, then deduct it from the druid's XP.

3. Fight Animal Companion, but Druid Has TIme to Get Another - Give party XP for the animal, but also give party full druid XP when the defeat the druid and the new animal companion together.



In this manner, the druid is never without XP. The party could feasibly kill enough animal companions to get double (or more) XP than the druid should actually be worth ... but at no point is the druid worth no XP. Once they regain the animal companion it resets and the first animal is essentially just a beefy random encounter!

 

[Arknath]

I have to laugh at the XP misers here.

You mean to tell me that the 300-1000 (Cr 1 to what, 10?) I might get from defeating an animal companion is going to make a sniff of difference in the grand picture of things? Even legendary animals (from the ELH) are no more than CR 10 and, really, at that point, the "8 level" rule applies. I think this group is giving too much credit to how tough an animal companion can be without a druid around.

And I mean WITHOUT any help from a druid. Obviously if he has cast spells on the animal and all that then the animal is a little tougher...but...come on...why make yourself have to do more math? Just give the extra 300 XP and get on with yer life.

 

[shilsen]

I have to laugh at the XP misers here.

You mean to tell me that the 300-1000 (Cr 1 to what, 10?) I might get from defeating an animal companion is going to make a sniff of difference in the grand picture of things? Even legendary animals (from the ELH) are no more than CR 10 and, really, at that point, the "8 level" rule applies. I think this group is giving too much credit to how tough an animal companion can be without a druid around.

And I mean WITHOUT any help from a druid. Obviously if he has cast spells on the animal and all that then the animal is a little tougher...but...come on...why make yourself have to do more math? Just give the extra 300 XP and get on with yer life.

Even that's way too complicated for me. I divorce XP completely from combat encounters or, for that matter, from anything happening in game. I just award a certain amount of XP per session to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. One of the big advantages is that it makes questions like the one asked in this thread nonexistent in my game.

 

[Christian]

Actually, no. I realize (or hope!) that you were just trying to be funny here, but just in case you weren't ...

Ridley's Cohort's one-word response was spot on, actually ...

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I have to laugh at the XP misers here.

You mean to tell me that the 300-1000 (Cr 1 to what, 10?) I might get from defeating an animal companion is going to make a sniff of difference in the grand picture of things? Even legendary animals (from the ELH) are no more than CR 10 and, really, at that point, the "8 level" rule applies. I think this group is giving too much credit to how tough an animal companion can be without a druid around.

And I mean WITHOUT any help from a druid. Obviously if he has cast spells on the animal and all that then the animal is a little tougher...but...come on...why make yourself have to do more math? Just give the extra 300 XP and get on with yer life.

I fail to understand the assumptions of this post.

For example, I don't believe the OP specified druid level. So, if we have a druid of 2nd level and you kill the animal companion seperate from the druid you've now given out 900 XP instead instead of 600? I admit that 300 XP is not a bunch, but on a level that requires you to get from 1,000 XP to 3,000 XP you've just now handed out more than 10% of the level just because you didn't want to do a little simple math.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but please don't forget that some of us enjoy math. Some of us enjoy the academic pursuit of spinning out the rules. We may not be miserly at all.

Truth is, my FtF games run about 5% combat 95% RP. I am seldom concerned about being an XP miser. I just enjoy the academic pursuit of following a concept and finding out its consequences - such as giving out more than 10% of a level's worth of XP for free. I don't think that makes me a miser. And I don't feel like I need to get on with my life, either.

Sorry if this comes of snarky, Arknath. I guess I just don't enjoy it when people assume that doing math is a punishment. I used to teach math for my occupation, after all!

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'd give full XP for for every encounter regardless.

Just because the Druid might not have his animal companion with him, doesn't diminish the encounter all that much. I mean, if you are going to be that nitpicky, why not reduce the XP for every spell the Druid wasn't able to cast before he was defeated. After all, he wasn't able to use his whole arsonal of spells, so that made the encounter easier, right?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

No, but isn't it the DMG that suggests that if you have a BBEG who only has half of their spells available for the day should have its CR reduced?

For example, say a party of average ECL 5 goes up against a level 7 wizard with the following spells left: 4/3/2/1/0

They've got the same amount of spells as a wizard of two levels less. But, they've got two extra levels of d4 hitpoints. (Not that much). They also have marginally better saves. (+1 all categories). Oh, and their BAB is +1, but that's not likely to matter much.

So, is that wizard 7 an ECL 7 ... or more like a 6 ... or just a powerful 5?


Edit: Should we be talking about an arcanist w/o a familiar I would agree that it doesn't diminish it all that much. But an animal companion of a druid is a reasonable force. Certainly not ECL to the party, but not chump change, either. If nothing else, it can get you flanking for a few rounds!

Edit II: Also, I'm not trying to compare a druid's animal companion to the wizard's most powerful spells. Certainly that is no comparison. What I am saying is that there is a precedent for reducing the CR of an opponent who is intentionally handicapped at the beginning of an encounter. An opponent who doesn't use their resources is not the same as one who does not have those same resources to use.

 

[Arknath]

... I admit that 300 XP is not a bunch, but on a level that requires you to get from 1,000 XP to 3,000 XP you've just now handed out more than 10% of the level just because you didn't want to do a little simple math.

This is not how I do things IMC. IMC, the only way that a PC gets 300XP is if he or she actually defeated the animal alone. I always divide this up by the number of PCs - in my case, 7 - which comes out to about 43XP a piece. I already DO simple math in my XP calculations, I just don't want to let the numbers and math get in the way of playing the game for the reason I play the game...for the stories.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but please don't forget that some of us enjoy math. Some of us enjoy the academic pursuit of spinning out the rules. We may not be miserly at all.

Well, I could have clarified my post a bit. I'm not "laughing at" anyone...I'm just surprised that a druid's animal companion actually might be that big a part of a druid's total XP value. I think, of the three parts of a druid's repertoire, the animal companion is the weakest (Spells and wild shape/shapeshift being #1 and #2 respectively).

Sorry if this comes of snarky, Arknath. I guess I just don't enjoy it when people assume that doing math is a punishment. I used to teach math for my occupation, after all!

I understand that you're defensive about your occupation, but I know few people in my life that enjoy complex mathematical problems. So, in my experience and in my opinion, most people would rather keep things simple (especially in a game) instead of having to write out formulaic equations to figure out exactly how much juice (XP) is in an orange (druid) and whether or not a slice of that orange (animal companion) is missing and if it really does matter.

I think RigaMortus2 has the right idea. If you catch your BBEG with half of his spells (and none of them are currently active on himself or his cronies) is he really up to the full CR? I don't think he is. The DMG doesn't give rules for it because it's too complicated. Just like, again, IMO, the rules doesn't give a "regression" table for hit points lost to actions performed (like taking penalties to attack rolls because you're at 1 hp) because of the complication involved. With all the non-mathematical complications of playing D&D already present (attacks of opportunities, grappling checks, etc.) why add something that might cause the game to stall?

*shrugs* I apologize if my initial post was a bit harsh...i can be that way some times...but some people want this game to be more complicated than it needs to be and, IMO, that's what was entirely wrong with 2nd edition and other gaming systems.

 

[IanB]

I'd probably give full xp for both if fought separately. I just don't care enough to figure out what the "real" cr of a companion-less druid is, and it is erring on the side of the players anyway, so nobody is getting hurt by my laziness.

This ignores, of course, the fact that classed NPCs are usually over-CRed, but the druid is one where it might actually live up to its CR.