Is this a legal method of converting gp to xp

[smetzger]

You would get XP for taming the horse, via your handle animal skill.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Unlikely, unless your alignment play is a one way trip only: Good->Evil. That would lead to illogical worlds

We have the funny thing, don't know if you know it: it's called "intention". If I see someone rescuing those poor babies out of the fire, and ask him why he did it, and he says "I did it in order to be able to kill more horses without becoming evil", I'll certainly call the guys from Rainbow House to commit him. Oh, and I would dub him evil. (and I would give the the detective a hint about who might have started the fire in order to create horse killing options).

Heh, why should i bother stating anything? I have asked a relevant rules question in a forum called D&D rules. Think about it

relevant. Ah. I remember someone in a PL forum who asked "Is C an abbreviation of COBOL?". The relevance and the reaction of both posts were roughly the same...

Using yourself as a guideline for how other people should behave will always lead to disappoinment, you'll understand that someday. Btw, what is it i haven't learnt?

I won't use myself as a guideline for how other people should behave. I use myself as a rough guideline for how other good-aligned people should behave. I understand that the world isn't made up of just good people. There always bastards. I won't be disappointed, I'll just know they're evil.

Btw, you obviously haven't learned that you should keep overly stupid questions to yourself.

If you don't consider _that_ question stupid, we seem to have different opinions on what's stupid. I suggest you open a poll or collect signatures or something that backs up your opinion. Until that is achieved, I just assume that most people (and almost all here on the boards) think that your Idea is pure BS.

Well it may be senseless to you, but look at my original question. Is there anything blocking this ruleswise? The logical assumption would then be that the rules are flawed somewhere.

The rules are flawed. ALL rules are flawed. I can tell you before looking at them. That's because they're made up by humans and they tend to make faults. And with such a complex system as the D&D rules, that's true twice over!

Of course, theyre are big, obvious flaws, like harm having no saving throw, and such flaws must be adressed. But again, if you make something foolproof, a better fool will come along. Therefore, we have the DM: he will recognize flaws, he'll know that the rulebooks can't be perfect (even holy Scriptures contradict themselves), and he'll severly punish every smartass who wants to take advantage of flaws. That's the way RPG works since it was made. And it works. Pretty well even.

Sticking a patch with the words "Its metagaming. Its the DM's job to shut this situation down" does nothing to change the fact the rules are still flawed somewhere

Perfection may not exist but neither shoiuld one give up searching for it

Why not start with obvious flaws and erase them? Why not leave the flaws that are only ones because some people will think of everything, no matter how stupid, until last?

Yeah but think about it. Seriously. D&D is a group game, there are 3 ways to change
i) DM
ii) Player
iii) The rules

i) and ii) will destroy the group dynamic (the first refers to the DM vs players position you proposed). iii) will create even ground, gues which one my group chose

i) There are bad DM's. You let them continue? Well, I'll be happy with my paragon celestial fiendish half-dragon pseudonatural terrasque lich as my familiar.

ii) There are people who are jerks to play with. Tell them to play right or stop playing with them. Or keep playing with the guy that punches you in the face everytime you kill more enemies in combat than him.

Those two things might well preserve group dynamic.

iii) There are rules that need fixing. If they're not already covered in errata (or possibly FAQ), the DM must fix them. But there are rules that are OK as they are. Because if you must have contigencies for every stupid idea anyone might possibly have, you need to graduate in "D&D Rules", "D&D Meta-Rules", "RPGing" and "Not being bloody stupid" before you can start.

Well i would be great if you could make a list of your universal truths and post it for discussion in a philosphical forum. You would be surprised

One includes "There are two infinite things: the universe and human folly. But we're sure yet with the universe.

Another is "If you kill helpless beings to gain power, you're evil".

Now let the people discuss (note that I explicitly forbid the heads of state from certain nations from partaking in this discussion).

Hmm, either you fail to understand my posts or you have ignored points that do not fit your answer. I have repeatedly said that my DM will find a way (if possible ruleswise) to block this.

What? Your DM will find a way to block this? Well, if he didn't, he should be gently flogged to death with silken shoelaces.

Indulge me how he will achieve this epic act of DMism.

If you want, I tell you what most DM's will do: They just say: "Quit being a jerk!" if they're asked to buy horses and kill them to use xp. Some DM's will just take out their XL Dice set and say "you got a head start of three seconds".

You could try a WWA/GC combo (been there done that long time ago) in our game. Off the top of my head, heres a few more you could try
Silly Simulacrum with Empower
Fabricate for cheap gold
Plane jumping for endless spells for casters
Armored constructs
I think those were the latest tried

You could try those things with most other DM's. The usual reaction:
WWA/GC: DM searches his XL Dice
Empowered Simulacrum: "No problem with that."
Multiply Empowered Simulacrum in epic campaigns: "100% is upper cap, and at those spell levels it might even be OK".
Fabricate for cheap gold: "Do go on. Change gold into gold. The alchemists will really envy you!" You might have some other spell in mind.
Armored Construcs: "Why not? A flesh golem, for example, could find a plate armor useful"

Please elaborate "Plane jumping for endless spells for casters".

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The idea here is to have a fixed system as close as fool proof as possible.

There's a simple solution to this: resolutely remove every fool from the party.

Now we have a game perfectly playable by humans. And computers without any elbowroom for decisions stay with your chess.

 

[FireLance]

My goodness, seems like everyone is having a bad day here. Let's play nice, people.

For what it's worth, I thought the crux of Luis's question was whether PCs should get XP for arena-style combats with opponents. However, because he mentioned horses as an example, the discussion became focused on whether it was evil to kill harmless herbivores.

My personal view is that PCs could get full XPs for this, provided there is a significant threat, e.g. no outside interference until one side or the other is dead. If you have a team of animal handlers and clerics on hand to pull you out of trouble, the XP would be divided by the number of helpers hanging around.

You might want to pick slightly more dangerous monsters than horses, though - a nickname like "pony-killer" is hardly awe-inspiring. Wild animals might be better for your reputation, although more expensive. You might want to start with wolves and work your way up to dire animals, beasts and magical beasts.

Plus, consider the economics of it - after a while, horses are going to get more and more expensive because there are going to be less and less of them around.

Personally, however, I feel that the best way of converting GP to XP is to get a 7th-level wizard to place random fire traps in your house. For the low, low cost of 305 gp (7th level x 40 gp for a 4th-level spell plus 25 gp for material components), a loss of 1d4+7 hp (Reflex half) and some collateral damage to the surroundings, you get XP equal to a CR5 encounter (magic trap CR = spell level + 1).

Have fun, people. Have I mentioned that was the whole point of playing a game?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Okay, so we're starting to get nasty again. Let's try to keep things down to a minimum. Don't try to get into anyone's head.

My opinion is if your DM wants to allow some kind of combat like that, just have him say how much XP you get for the GP and don't bother playing it out.

 

[Luis Figoo]

Good vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil.

 

[Luis Figoo]

ANALYSIS: This is something you are actually intending to do. You even have a sketch for an ongoing plan "if this works."

IMPLICATION: Either this post is misleading, or the subsequent posts describing this as a mental excercize are misleading.

If it works as in DM cannot block it ruleswise. This action is definately intended

ANALYSIS: So you know this is not going to work. See my analysis above.

IMPLICATION: This must not, therefore, be something you intend to do. This makes your initial post misleading. You could simply be foolish, but you later state that you are not an idiot. Assuming you are correct, then you must have been DELIBERATELY misleading. Why would you do this?

Yes it will be blocked as in non rulesbased block. If one animal type is blocked, another will be chosen until a blanket block or admission of house rule necessity is made

ANALYSIS: So this is just a mental excercise. You are aware that the rules are inconsistant and have loopholes. This is just some sort of a game that you and your DM play with each other.

No it is not a mental exercise, it is part of the game

ANALYSIS: So we're back to you actually thinking of ways to convince your DM to allow this? Hadn't you already tried to tell us that this is just an excercize? Unless this is a hypothetical example. But you are giving stats of your character as part of the arguement you would give your DM. That sounds less hypothetical and more like a specific tactic you intend to try.

When have i said i will not try the tactic. I have specifically said i will do this. To block as many escape routes or clauses requires i analyze the possible positions taken by the DM and come up with counters. Played chess before?

ANALYSIS: Again, we're back to this being an actual tactic you are going to employ. You are certain your DM will disallow your attempt. Why are you attempting it if this is, indeed, simply a sort of mental game you and your DM play to discover hypothetical loopholes in the rules?

Yes it will be employed

IMPLICATION (ONGOING): You are being very inconsisant. It is seeming more and more like you are altering your stated purpose of posting to better respond to the problems people present. This is not a posting pattern that is indicitive of somebody actually trying to recieve useful information. Rather, it seems that you are attempting to get as many people arguing with you as possible.

Duh, i know he wil block it but if its a non rules based block, it can be overcome. There is a difference between rules based block and non rules based blocks you know.

ANALYSIS: So the rules as they are written are not exceedingly important to you. Why then, all the effort to expose loopholes in them? Why bring up the question here when our opinions matter not at all, since your group is the only body with authority to debate rules and restrictions that apply to it?

IMPLICATION: Another post that seems inconsistent with your others. See my ONGOING implication above.

Wrong the rules as written are important to me, what is not important is how other people play. I posted here simply to see if anyone has a rules based couter to it in some passage i missed. Read the initial post, look at the name of this forum

ANALYSIS: There seems to be a discrepancy between this and the previous quote, which states that anything is acceptable as long as the whole group agrees to it. So do you follow the rules or not?

Context, guess to who was my answer posted and to refute which point. Any play style is acceptable as long as the group as a whole agrees to it. RP, monty hauling, hack and slash, min/maxing, etc.

ANALYSIS: Trying again to argue that this is a mental excercise.

Nope it is not a mental exercise, it will be tried.

ANALYSIS: Few people think they themselves are an idiot.

IMPLICATION: Simply stating this does not make it a true statement.

Yes thats true, however unless your exceedingly dim or lacking in self understanding, everyone knows what area of life they are an idiot in. Think about it

ANALYSIS: I think the very argument that has insued is insurance enough of the fact that the rules are flawed. Nobody has ever stated that the rules are, or even that they should be, flawless. You are also back to your arguement that your group is rooting out these flaws deliberately to get rid of them. What, then, about your above posts about using the rules to your own advantage and the implications that this is something you intend to actually attempt?

Yes it is actually to be attempted, as can be seen in numerous posts

ANALYSIS: You have indeed repeatedly stated this. You have also contradicted yourself multiple times. See above. You have made enough points to fit anybody's reply to you. Your points simply fail to all agree with each other.

You are incorrect in your analysis due to a lack of comprehension of what is going on

ANALYSIS: We have not yet made a firm decision regarding your intelligence or sanity. I might also note that you did not actually deny being a troll.

IMPLICATION: Yes, if this is a troll post you are being stupid. We already knew that.

You should notice that people tend to not bother denying directly when the question is considered too dumb to answer.
For example

Are you asleep
Possibilities
i) Yes i am asleep
ii) No

Similarly
Are you a troll?
i) Yes i am a troll
ii) No

ANALYSIS: We have established above that not only are you and your entire group intimitely aware of most of the rules of D&D, but that you have already explored numerous ways in which they are flawed and inconsistant.

IMPLICATIONS: You are not really looking for a rule you've missed. You are well aware that you have overlooked nothing. Yet posted the question and continue to post. This is, by definition, trollish behavior.

Duh, seriously you need to read the entire thread. There are a few non rules based answers that i did not consider due to my incomplete or lack of knowledge of middle ages culture and horses. This in itself is a big help

ANALYSIS: Indeed. Remember, you didn't actually deny it.


FINAL CONCLUSION: Your statements have been inconsistent and contradictory. There seems to be no way you have posted this thread seeking real debate or actual information, regardless of you unsubstantiated assertations otherwise. You are officially a troll, and not even a clever one like our local, cuddly Bugaboo. Trolls such as yourself exist to make your lonliness seem lessened by having real people (albeit anonomous) respond to your infantile statements. Give it up.

Sadly you failed to comprehend and integerate information from my posts into a coherent whole. Your entire analysis suffers from a fatal flaw. Assumption that this will not be tried or that it is purely a mental exercise

Take a chess move. Do you try to think of all possible counters the opponent may have before moving. While this thinking is a mental exercise of sorts, does that mean you never move the chess piece?

Perhaps you can come to a conclusion that it is my fault for not imeediately posting my group history, play style and quirks immediately in my first post, which begs the question of why i would have to do that at all when the initial post was a simple question in a logical forum

 

[Caliban]

You truly are a munchkin, you know that?

What you are trying to do is not role-playing, it's simply the most transparent example of meta-gaming I've ever seen.

Seriously, stop bothering us with this nonsense.

 

[Luis Figoo]

We have the funny thing, don't know if you know it: it's called "intention". If I see someone rescuing those poor babies out of the fire, and ask him why he did it, and he says "I did it in order to be able to kill more horses without becoming evil", I'll certainly call the guys from Rainbow House to commit him. Oh, and I would dub him evil. (and I would give the the detective a hint about who might have started the fire in order to create horse killing options).

Not true, in character, the hatred of the chosen animal is what drives the character, yet the desire to help others exists seperately. Whether someone is good or evil merely depends on which holds greater sway.

Creating a situation as you described above (setting fire then saving the babies) does nothing and it is unlikely the DM will put this down as a good act. In character motivations and out of character motivations can support each other depending on how you play it

Btw, you obviously haven't learned that you should keep overly stupid questions to yourself.

If you don't consider _that_ question stupid, we seem to have different opinions on what's stupid. I suggest you open a poll or collect signatures or something that backs up your opinion. Until that is achieved, I just assume that most people (and almost all here on the boards) think that your Idea is pure BS.

I agree we definately seem to have differences in what we consider stupid. My stand is simple. There are never stupid questions merely unasked questions

The rules are flawed. ALL rules are flawed. I can tell you before looking at them. That's because they're made up by humans and they tend to make faults. And with such a complex system as the D&D rules, that's true twice over!

Of course, theyre are big, obvious flaws, like harm having no saving throw, and such flaws must be adressed. But again, if you make something foolproof, a better fool will come along. Therefore, we have the DM: he will recognize flaws, he'll know that the rulebooks can't be perfect (even holy Scriptures contradict themselves), and he'll severly punish every smartass who wants to take advantage of flaws. That's the way RPG works since it was made. And it works. Pretty well even.

You are correct in that perfection is unlikely to be achieved and the DM is the last line of defense against flaws. That does not mean we should give up patching the flaws

Why not start with obvious flaws and erase them? Why not leave the flaws that are only ones because some people will think of everything, no matter how stupid, until last?

The obvious flaws as can be thought has been identified and solved if possible. However some are really too far reaching in effect to solve so easily. One such is the speed of battle in high level combats using 1 shot kill spells, no save spells, quicken, haste, harm, time stop, disjunction, move enhancers. Epic is a mess after we tried it for a while.

i) There are bad DM's. You let them continue? Well, I'll be happy with my paragon celestial fiendish half-dragon pseudonatural terrasque lich as my familiar.

ii) There are people who are jerks to play with. Tell them to play right or stop playing with them. Or keep playing with the guy that punches you in the face everytime you kill more enemies in combat than him.

Those two things might well preserve group dynamic.

iii) There are rules that need fixing. If they're not already covered in errata (or possibly FAQ), the DM must fix them. But there are rules that are OK as they are. Because if you must have contigencies for every stupid idea anyone might possibly have, you need to graduate in "D&D Rules", "D&D Meta-Rules", "RPGing" and "Not being bloody stupid" before you can start.

i) and ii) handled in a heavy handed manner results in unhappiness. Unless yoiu don't know the people in i) and ii), this unhappiness does in subtle ways carry over out of game.

Using iii), you can simply point out that the rules don't allow it without any interpersonal (or reduced anyway) conflict

What? Your DM will find a way to block this? Well, if he didn't, he should be gently flogged to death with silken shoelaces.

Indulge me how he will achieve this epic act of DMism.

If you want, I tell you what most DM's will do: They just say: "Quit being a jerk!" if they're asked to buy horses and kill them to use xp. Some DM's will just take out their XL Dice set and say "you got a head start of three seconds".

I'm not him so i cannot predict for certain what he'll do (would not be fun if i could). I would say he would put a stop gap measure if he can't use the existing rules to block this. Stop gap measures are simple to introduce, such as a lack of horses, available horses being with calvary units, etc

You could try those things with most other DM's. The usual reaction:
WWA/GC: DM searches his XL Dice
Empowered Simulacrum: "No problem with that."
Multiply Empowered Simulacrum in epic campaigns: "100% is upper cap, and at those spell levels it might even be OK".

You might want to rethink this. Simulacum just requires some body part and not even essential ones. You can make simulacrums of extremely powerful beings, from dragons, to solars, to named NPCs. That with epic spell reduction of extra caster contributing an epic slot makes the entire thing insane

Fabricate for cheap gold: "Do go on. Change gold into gold. The alchemists will really envy you!" You might have some other spell in mind.

You need 2 things. A skill enhancing item and raw materials. Make high priced, time consuming items (example, suits of full plate masterwork). Sell, repeat. Leads to illogical economies

Armored Construcs: "Why not? A flesh golem, for example, could find a plate armor useful"

All construts can find armor useful. Read the golem descrip. They use natural armor, which is stackable with an armor bonus. Use mithral for minimum negative effect from a lack of proficiency

Please elaborate "Plane jumping for endless spells for casters".

You utilise time flow. By locating a demi plane with a faster time flow, you shift into the plane when your spells are running low. Rememorise and pray, shift back and you have your full spell allotment 1 round after you plane shifted

 

[Luis Figoo]

You truly are a munchkin, you know that?

What you are trying to do is not role-playing, it's simply the most transparent example of meta-gaming I've ever seen.

Seriously, stop bothering us with this nonsense.

*shrug*
I've already gotten some good counter points. As such i'll accede to your request