Is this a legal method of converting gp to xp

[Dinkeldog]

Let's keep the insults to a minimum, please.

 

[Pax]

About being evil:
Putting aside the DM by DM variation of alignment (thus no stright alignment answer can ever be given), here's an easy way to rectify that.

Dislike animals as part of your character and the same time remeber to add in some characteristics to help you become good , such as having a softspot for children and elderly. Set up a situation where you'll be hurt or almost hurt by a horse. Cultivate a hatred for horses, you now have as good a reason as any for killing horses. Next, do more good deeds, like saving people (not difficult to find those). Depending on DM, saving sentient life may prove more "good" than animal killing.

You can dislike animals all you want; killing one without what canbe OBJECTIVELY described as a good reason, is still evil, regardless.

Your hatred for horses justifies it as bing "in character" but not for being "good" ... does an extreme hatred for small children, make themurder of small children not an evil act?

Nope.

btw, i've always disliked bring alignment to any argument, it does nothing at all.

... nothing except point out the consequences of your actions. If a paladin pulls the "slaughter horses for levels" trick, s/he loses their Paladin status. *pfft*, gone.

Pax:
A good point about the bullrush. However, if it was a confined space, with no visible exit, would the animal not be forced to attack?

Son, I'm willing to bet money you've not spent ten consecutive minutes in the company of a real, live horse that wasn't tied to a post or the like, in your entire life, have you?

Horses are herbivores ... with the exception of a mare defending her offspring (maybe), and a stallion protecting his herd of mares (guaranteed), a horse will exceedingly rarely act aggressively to something it perceives as a threat.

If the enclosure is complete ... thent he horse will run about the edge of the enclosure, seeking (in a mindless panic) to find an escape route. It will FAR more likely attack the corral fence (etc), before it turns on you.

And regardless, it's not an obstacle you need to overcome, so you won't get XP for it at all. Frankly, you might get a NEGATIVE award for even trying such a lame stunt.

That description of killing things to learn to kill things better would fit most nobles hunting for sport.

Which is why Lawful Good nobles (heck, if you look at real-life medieval and renaissance history, good aligned at all) are so rare.

And not every nobleman hunts, and of those that do, not every one does so purely for sport. One needn't lack enjoyment of the hunt, for the hunt to be intended to feed oneself.

Regarding the challenge thing. I double checked the DMG to see if my memory was wrong and it said this at the start of the chapter "When the party defeats monsters, the DM awards the party XP". In fact other than the story award, there is little talk regarding challenge, goals or what not.

Reread it; it also states that "defeat" does not mean kill. I distinctly recall a passage about wether or not sneaking past a Minotaur was a challenge to be defeated, or not; it indicates that if the party needed to get past the Minotaur to reach, say, a treasure vault they needed/wanted to loot ... then simply sneaking by earns full XP. IF, however, the minotaur is just napping along a side hall, even SLAUGHTERING it earns ... nothing. Nada. Dipkiss.

Caliban:
Regarding the charm/control thing, that opens another can of worms. For example, would a warrior mounted on a warhorse net you the horse xp if you defeated both? Would the horse not be considered controlled?

If the warrior was a paladin, and the mount was his or her bonded mount ... then no, you don't get XP. If the warrior was a Ranger or Druid, and the mount was their animal companion, then no, you don't get XP.

The concept is: animal companions, Paladin's Mounts, etc ... are all covered, XP-wise, by the class level of the "owning" character.

Since Charm monster/Dominate lasts for days on end, in a astral/etheral blocked dungeon where the caster sends these charmed/dominated in attacking waves, does that mean you net 0 xp for the entire process if the wizard uses a single teleport to escape into a scry protected area?

Is the goal to escape? IF so, the escaping character(s) earn full XP for defeating the SOURCE of the charmed monsters ... but none for the monsters in question.

Using the straight defination of XP reward in the DMG, for summons, i agree, for charm (and for that matter leadership) i don't.

Followers due to leadership are part of the leader's XP awards. Defeat him, get the XP; fail, get nothing. If defeating him requires you to slaughter scores of lower-level followers ... well, them's the breaks, the enemy Leader DID pay for the feat, and work on CHA and other benefits to push their Leadership score up.

 

[clark411]

It most definitely is allowable.


In my campaign, eckspees are minute, invisible alien gremlin like buggers. Whenever a character refers to them, thinks of them, or acts in a manner that is aimed with the overt goal of getting them, they arrive.

And then the fun starts. Eckspees tend to go for one of two things with your average adventurer: the wallet or the crotch.

 

[Luis Figoo]

You can dislike animals all you want; killing one without what canbe OBJECTIVELY described as a good reason, is still evil, regardless.

Your hatred for horses justifies it as bing "in character" but not for being "good" ... does an extreme hatred for small children, make themurder of small children not an evil act?

Nope.

Read the entire sentence, theres a part about doing *good* deeds? You know the type that makes you good in alignment? The entire background thing is merely to maintain the thing in character

... nothing except point out the consequences of your actions. If a paladin pulls the "slaughter horses for levels" trick, s/he loses their Paladin status. *pfft*, gone.

Actually you could count those base classes affected by a shiftf on the good-evil axis on 3 fingers and 2 of those, cleric (33%) and druid (40%), aren't even affected most of the time.

To put those nuumbers in perspective, theres a total of 11 classes, not to mention neither the NPCs gained through leadership (NPC classes) nor i (as a SC fighter) is mechanically affected at all.

Son, I'm willing to bet money you've not spent ten consecutive minutes in the company of a real, live horse that wasn't tied to a post or the like, in your entire life, have you?

Absolutely and i'm not ashamed to admit it

Horses are herbivores ... with the exception of a mare defending her offspring (maybe), and a stallion protecting his herd of mares (guaranteed), a horse will exceedingly rarely act aggressively to something it perceives as a threat.

If the enclosure is complete ... thent he horse will run about the edge of the enclosure, seeking (in a mindless panic) to find an escape route. It will FAR more likely attack the corral fence (etc), before it turns on you.

Now this information i can use, now i'll just have to hunt for a commonly found canivore in the MM

Which is why Lawful Good nobles (heck, if you look at real-life medieval and renaissance history, good aligned at all) are so rare.

And not every nobleman hunts, and of those that do, not every one does so purely for sport. One needn't lack enjoyment of the hunt, for the hunt to be intended to feed oneself

Ther's absolutely no reason to say that they weren't good by the morals and social structure of their times. That in essence is why alignment arguments are worthless and goes no where.

Reread it; it also states that "defeat" does not mean kill. I distinctly recall a passage about wether or not sneaking past a Minotaur was a challenge to be defeated, or not; it indicates that if the party needed to get past the Minotaur to reach, say, a treasure vault they needed/wanted to loot ... then simply sneaking by earns full XP. IF, however, the minotaur is just napping along a side hall, even SLAUGHTERING it earns ... nothing. Nada. Dipkiss.

Actually, the minotaur example as written by you is faulty. The DMG merely states that the minotaur is considered defeated if the party bypasses it. It does not say that you get no xp if you ran up to it and killed it.

Note the number of references to defeating in combat. There is no statement of goals or whatever necessary.

Here's a quote from pg 165 of the DMG
"It is usually easy to do this. Did the characters defeat the enemy in combat? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points"

Now before you start on semantics on whats an enemy, consider the roll down effects and difficulty of pin pointing what is considered an enemy.

Just thought of something, since as you say defeat does not mean kill. I could beat the animal(s) senseless, sell it, buy another one or bunch and continue (to prevent arguments that defeating the same animal nets no xp). Much better xp per gp ratio

If the warrior was a paladin, and the mount was his or her bonded mount ... then no, you don't get XP. If the warrior was a Ranger or Druid, and the mount was their animal companion, then no, you don't get XP.

The concept is: animal companions, Paladin's Mounts, etc ... are all covered, XP-wise, by the class level of the "owning" character.

A Paladin or what not has absolutely nothing to do with my idea. I was merely pointing out that a fighter level 1 mounted on a horse would net xp for both fighter and horse for the people that defeated it would it not? Lets try to keep this on topic.

Is the goal to escape? IF so, the escaping character(s) earn full XP for defeating the SOURCE of the charmed monsters ... but none for the monsters in question.

Ok so in your case, you would consider the party would have gotten 0 xp even though they fought through a dungeon filled with charmed monsters and the enemy spellcaster escaped. How about golems made by the spell caster, would those count as 0 xp too? Those after all are technically part of the enemy spell casters equipment by level.

Had another thought. If golems are 0 xp, then golems whose creators are gone would net 0 xp until all golems made by the same person were destroyed. Even then it would be a tough call. Do you get xp from dead people by destroying their possessions or assets?

 

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Louis Figoo
Just thought of something, since as you say defeat does not mean kill. I could beat the animal(s) senseless, sell it, buy another one or bunch and continue (to prevent arguments that defeating the same animal nets no xp). Much better xp per gp ratio

I think you are missing the point of playing a roleplaying game.

At what point does this theoretical gp-to-xp process of yours stop being accounting and become fun?

 

[the Jester]

With the hooking this has gotten there are many fishes that bite beneath the bridge.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

About being evil:
Putting aside the DM by DM variation of alignment (thus no stright alignment answer can ever be given), here's an easy way to rectify that.

Dislike animals as part of your character and the same time remeber to add in some characteristics to help you become good , such as having a softspot for children and elderly. Set up a situation where you'll be hurt or almost hurt by a horse. Cultivate a hatred for horses, you now have as good a reason as any for killing horses. Next, do more good deeds, like saving people (not difficult to find those). Depending on DM, saving sentient life may prove more "good" than animal killing

Well, I dislike horses too. To put it, sometimes I really hate them. Our neighbour has a stable full of the fourlegged bastards and they bring flies to our home and horse to our street.
It won't make me evil to hate them. But if I just take a knife, go to my neighbours stables and kill the beasts, just because I don't like them, I'm evil. Perioud.

A good person doesn't let himself be controlled by petty emotions like anger or hate. You should watch Star Wars more often

btw, i've always disliked bring alignment to any argument, it does nothing at all.

I've always disliked bring folly into any argument. Noone cares.

About being a good sport or playing some MMORPG:
Our group has played since first ed (for D&D anyway).

Your proposition was just as stupid. How long you played the Game doensn't make a stupid idea better. If anything, it shows that you haven't learned in all those years.

Theres not much we've not done, from serious RP, to the numbers game to what not. All of those are facets of the same D20 which is an RPG. This little exercise is part of the same D20, except it helps our group isolate and fix loopholes.

Well, it's settled then: we all agree that the idea is far out and everyone actually trying to pull that one will be "die cast"

Heres something to think about
There is no correct way to play, everyone like different things about a game at different points of time in their life. As long as the game players have no complaints, it is perfectly acceptable

Right. There's no single correct way, but many incorrect ones. And show me the one party that doesn't complain if anyone buys animals and kills them to gain XP.

That description of killing things to learn to kill things better would fit most nobles hunting for sport.

We all know that nobles are evil bastards. And they don't kill to learn to kill better. They kill because it's a social event.

Regarding the challenge thing. I double checked the DMG to see if my memory was wrong and it said this at the start of the chapter
"When the party defeats monsters,m the DM awards the party XP". In fact other than the story award, there is little talk regarding challenge, goals or what not

You forgot to read the one line that says: "DM's must not be stupid"

Regarding the charm/control thing, that opens another can of worms. For example, would a warrior mounted on a warhorse net you the horse xp if you defeated both? Would the horse not be considered controlled?

Since Charm monster/Dominate lasts for days on end, in a astral/etheral blocked dungeon where the caster sends these charmed/dominated in attacking waves, does that mean you net 0 xp for the entire process if the wizard uses a single teleport to escape into a scry protected area?

Using the straight defination of XP reward in the DMG, for summons, i agree, for charm (and for that matter leadership) i don't.

You forgot the line again.

As for the reputation thing, yes i know it would be silly, i'll place that as a RP disadvantage though. Nothing that can't be solved with some creative thinking. It would also be a hush hush affair, so few would even know

Depend on the DM to punish you. DM's have ways to make things known. Some God of horses and the like who doesn't like your behavior and who contacts his humble servant, a Equine Lord.

Just a clarification. Actually it wasn't poaching. It was perfectly legal for whale hunting and such (for a time at least). It would have been as evil at that time as it was for anyone doing their job.

Yea? The guy who sells me my newspaper is as evil as a guy who kills elephants for their ivory? You've got to be kidding. Being evil and being against the law is not the same. In some countries, a thief (even if he stole bread lest he starves to death) will get cut his hands off if caught. It's the law. It's evil, nonetheless.

As for the little girls, well i would tell them
"Hey little girl, here's a dog. Its just like a horse with a long snout and 4 legs!"

Girls hate dogs, everyone knows that. You coul give them a cat. But they're far to small to ride.

There is a difference here from your monopoly example. Its using the game's rules for maximum advantage (btw our entire group come up with these ideas as well), though your temperature idea is interesting

Minutes. The advantage of RPG is that you don't just have a stone-cast set of rules, but a person, the DM, who can ignore rules if his common sense tells him to do so. So it doesn't matter a cent whether it's allowed by the rules. If the DM thinks it's abuse, you won't be happy with it. The best thing is that he doesn't have to forbid it to you, but can use it against you to teach you a lesson.

Like the evil party 6 or so levels above you who kills you for the xp you give them....

 

[Fast Learner]

There is a difference here from your monopoly example. Its using the game's rules for maximum advantage (btw our entire group come up with these ideas as well), though your temperature idea is interesting

Clearly you simply don't understand the very basic concept of sportsmanship/gamesmanship.

 

[Luis Figoo]

Caliban:
Nope i haven't. this is a sort of rules chess we play and our group finds it fun.

KaeYoss:
Well i never said i'm a good character. My method is merely a way for you to maintain non-evil status in character.

As for the gaming experience statement, be aware that it was to simply state that i am not new to this as some of the posters seem to imply.

As for not learning all those years perhaps you as a "oh great wise and holy teacher" will tell me what i have not learnt. Do not imply insults and i will refrain from doing so else it works both ways

Who is to judge what is considered correct or incorrect way of playing? You? WotC? Note that the rules give structure but do not force you to play in a certain style. That in effect is the attractiveness of RPGs, the unformed potential

As for a group that does not mind, mine does not. Most likely everyone will come with with a variant suitable for their own classes. If it proves to be an unassailable position ruleswise then the DM will come up with a house rule, we discuss/modify it as a group and implement it.

My DM is not dumb, far from it, neither am i an idiot when i DM. However neither of us pulls silly stuff like having a paragon horse appear in a unnescapable confined space. Now the god of horses idea would be usable.

Again like i said, what is considered evil is not in another society. Tell me who or what defines what is evil, think about it. I would say girls hating dogs would be a blanket statement. I see alot of dog owners being girls and cat owners being guys (taking girls and guys as phrases refering to a non adult age).

As for the DM following common sense, he has no problem with that. The rules do matter though as it is the structure of the game. Simply putting the onus of solving everything to the DM merely causes more problems to crop up (as well as being too tiring), which is why house rules are discussed by the entire group and implemented. The hard part of this is that 3e rules are integrated so all follow up effects must be thought out (this is where having a rules knowledgable group is useful)

As for having an evil party, they could try to do that, why not? The logical consequences (bounty hunted by the law or whatever) merely outweigh the rewards

Fast Learner:
You don't even merit a response

 

[Dinkeldog]

Okay, this thread's at an 8, we need it at about a 5.