ThirdWizard
First Post
Hmm, it could partly be said that the PCs lost then? Is that accurate?
Figureing XP for an odd encounter
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
The DM sets up an encounter against 10 human brigands, all 3rd level fighters.
Now lets say the brigands have no weapons or armor. Would you still give full XP for the encounter?
Lets say they are now going against 6 flying creatures, but in a room too small to fly in. Would you give full XP?
Or lets say they come across 25 goblins in a pit, and the only way up is a single rope. Would you give full XP?
Or lets say it is 90 orcs, but the only way across is a small slippery bridge, would you give full XP?
I wouldn't.
But if they walked into a group of kobolds, that were prepared and organized, they may get more than 'full XP'.
The bridge made the encounter much easier than 'normal'; thus I would likely give them less than 'normal' XP.
Now lets say the brigands have no weapons or armor. Would you still give full XP for the encounter?
Lets say they are now going against 6 flying creatures, but in a room too small to fly in. Would you give full XP?
Or lets say they come across 25 goblins in a pit, and the only way up is a single rope. Would you give full XP?
Or lets say it is 90 orcs, but the only way across is a small slippery bridge, would you give full XP?
I wouldn't.
But if they walked into a group of kobolds, that were prepared and organized, they may get more than 'full XP'.
The bridge made the encounter much easier than 'normal'; thus I would likely give them less than 'normal' XP.
Crothian
First Post
ThirdWizard said:
I don't think so. We gave better then we got. Our goal was to clear the outpost (which we did) and then map some underground tunnels back to the dwarven city (which we are about to do). Keeping and holding the outpost was never a goal though we thought about it.
It really depends on how one looks at it. If you look at just the battle, it is a loss ince we ran away. But in the bigger scope of things we never were going to hold the outpost anyway. We hoped to get some reinfocements but that never happened.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Ah okay, yeah, I'll stick with what I origonally said. 50% xp for good conditions. Which is still a fair amount for 4th level characters! They defeated 60 orcs and 12 wargs, right? So that's 1125 xp for the orcs and 900 xp each for the wargs (assuming 4 level 4 charactes) totaling 2025 xp each before story awards. Which I wouldn't call a low amount at all. That's about half of what a just leveled 4th level character needs to hit 5th. If they're already half way there, it doesn't matter anyway. 
Greylock
First Post
I am a player, not a DM, so I am scratching my pointy little head at the general direction of this thread. Especially considering that the PC generated Flaming Sphere affected, maybe greatly, the actions of the Orcs, why is everyone shortchanging the party?
I always thought an enemy killed was an enemy killed, even more so since the party made tactical decisions that lead to the heaping pile of dead orcs. I understand it if you run away and a squad of kobolds fall into a pit chasing you, sure! no XP. But these deaths came in battle, with PC influence.
'Splain please.
I always thought an enemy killed was an enemy killed, even more so since the party made tactical decisions that lead to the heaping pile of dead orcs. I understand it if you run away and a squad of kobolds fall into a pit chasing you, sure! no XP. But these deaths came in battle, with PC influence.
'Splain please.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Greylock said:
Basically, battles can have favorable or unfavorable circumstances for the players. Now CR never changes. A large air elemental is always a CR 5 encounter. But, if the circumstances are extremely in the PC's favor or disfavor, then it might be worth more than a typical CR 5 encounter or less than a typical CR 5 encounter.
Say, the floor is slippery and everyone has to make DC 10 Balance checks every round or fall down. Suddenly that large air elemental is a lot harder than if you fought him in a "normal" room. It's still CR 5, but the DM might deem that the party overcame a challenge that was more difficult than a CR 5. Thus, he might assign a +20% XP bonus to the encounter based on the circumstances.
In a second example, say the party finds themselves facing a troll (also CR 5) below them in a pit with only simple ropes to climb to get out, and he has no ranged weapon. He has to keep making climb checks to get up, the PCs can start cutting ropes, and shoot him with arrows. It is doubtful that any DM is going to award full xp for this encounter.
So, the encounter is going to modify XP. Note that even if PCs fail to take advantage of the situation or if they expend resources to overcome it more easily, the DM should still take these considerations into account. If the PCs in the first example all used potions of fly or cast levetate or what have you, they should still get the bonus because they used resources to overcome the problem. It was still there, and they overcame it like any other challenge. In the second, if the PC barbarian jumps into the pit with the troll, he should not be rewarded for doing so - that's just stupid. They should still take the lower xp award.
Sometimes the PCs can likewise turn a normal situation into an easy one using good tactics or taking advantage of other things. In this case, they should get the normal xp award. They used strategy to overcome an encounter, which is good. So, if in the OP, the PCs had turned a 30' wide bridge into a 5' wide one, or if they had somehow egged the orcs into crossing when they were going to siege the place, then they would have possibly gotten full xp for turning a bad situation into a better one. However, the setup was one which put the PCs at an advantage naturally, so this should be taken into account when determining XP values rewarded.
Thondor
I run Compose Dream Games RPG Marketplace
Well, I followed this with interest since I recently had a group (all-new players, 4 1st level characters) attacked by 10 goblins and an ogre while using fortifications to their benefit.
Thing is they could have steathed their way out of it with a probable small scuffle but instead stayed and rigged up a couple traps and some boiling fat. They ended up killing all but the goblin leader and 2 goblin archers who used a back exit the PC didn't know about. 4 goblins also used that door too ambush them.
I still feel conflicted over the whole issue. The situation was clearly in their favour, and that's why they stayed. But they made the situation more in their favour. They knew the 10 goblins were out there ( the ogre was a surprise) And new help would arrive eventually. So they wanted to hold the fort and eliminate the threat. It seems to me that they did the intelligent thing. And they learnt that when properly prepared and in favorable situations you can do things you certainly wouldn't be able to do normally. (Shortly I plan to have them learn that when ambushed in the middle of the night 3 goblins can be a serious threat) Which tells me they should be getting a bonus. These are all first time gamers sound strategy needs to be encouraged just like acting in character.
So it almost seems to me that I should be reducing the XP for favorable conditions, not reducing it for the conditions they created, and giving them a bonus because of the learning experience.
I don't know and all the discussion so far hasn't swayed me very far. In the original case I think that the fact the party was divided to start is very important. Another important question is was the bridge made slippery by the party? When it comes down to it though I think there's a question you need to ask yourself:
Did you make it easier than it should have been? Did you go easy on the party knowing they wouldn't survive if the orcs acted too intelligently? Why didn't they attack with ranged weapons? Why didn't they scout for the other entrance? Why did they keep running across the bridge when there was a flaming sphere on it? people just don't do that. Much less worgs, fire is a great source of fear for animals. If you reduced the risk then yes the XP should be lowered. If the PC's acted intelligently and there foe's reacted on somewhat equal terms then why should they be penalyzed.
Of course there's nothing wrong with reducing the risk, it just needs to be taken into account. Enough rambling I'm not sure if I even agree with myself anyway.
-We always forget that the monster doesn't want to die either-
Thing is they could have steathed their way out of it with a probable small scuffle but instead stayed and rigged up a couple traps and some boiling fat. They ended up killing all but the goblin leader and 2 goblin archers who used a back exit the PC didn't know about. 4 goblins also used that door too ambush them.
I still feel conflicted over the whole issue. The situation was clearly in their favour, and that's why they stayed. But they made the situation more in their favour. They knew the 10 goblins were out there ( the ogre was a surprise) And new help would arrive eventually. So they wanted to hold the fort and eliminate the threat. It seems to me that they did the intelligent thing. And they learnt that when properly prepared and in favorable situations you can do things you certainly wouldn't be able to do normally. (Shortly I plan to have them learn that when ambushed in the middle of the night 3 goblins can be a serious threat) Which tells me they should be getting a bonus. These are all first time gamers sound strategy needs to be encouraged just like acting in character.
So it almost seems to me that I should be reducing the XP for favorable conditions, not reducing it for the conditions they created, and giving them a bonus because of the learning experience.
I don't know and all the discussion so far hasn't swayed me very far. In the original case I think that the fact the party was divided to start is very important. Another important question is was the bridge made slippery by the party? When it comes down to it though I think there's a question you need to ask yourself:
Did you make it easier than it should have been? Did you go easy on the party knowing they wouldn't survive if the orcs acted too intelligently? Why didn't they attack with ranged weapons? Why didn't they scout for the other entrance? Why did they keep running across the bridge when there was a flaming sphere on it? people just don't do that. Much less worgs, fire is a great source of fear for animals. If you reduced the risk then yes the XP should be lowered. If the PC's acted intelligently and there foe's reacted on somewhat equal terms then why should they be penalyzed.
Of course there's nothing wrong with reducing the risk, it just needs to be taken into account. Enough rambling I'm not sure if I even agree with myself anyway.
-We always forget that the monster doesn't want to die either-
Similar Threads
