Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 2104209" data-attributes="member: 545">Well played, Bastoche.  I say full XP for you.I think Pendragon's point is that a monster of CR n is not simply a walking bag of XP that you can look up on a chart.  A monster is part of an encouter, a problem, an opportunity.  It is the intrisic difficulty of the encounter as a whole that should give experience.  The monster is just a piece of the encounter.  Sometimes a very large piece, sometimes a small piece.  You have to look a the whole situation.  The CR of the critters involved are not necessarily as important as the exact situation.A hydra that can be avoided by patience and some easy climb checks might be worth less XP than a handful of cowardly goblins that roll rocks down on you while you are skirting along that same steep canyon wall.For such an encounter I would just split the difference.  If you try the "brave" direct approach of killing a hydra you could have avoided, you get less than full XP.  But that option is open to you.  If you take the climbing route, your pride is more in danger than your life, but you will need to spend some spell resources to rectify the situation or rely on some skill checks.  The CRs of the goblins are pathetic, but they are worth more (the same as the hydra in this case) because of the context.It is a fine thing to allow the PCs the full benefit of luck and good tactics, but I do not like to see outright stupidity rewarded.  I say set up the situation, give the PCs multiple options (some wiser than others), set the XP for the situation at one single number, and let them figure it out.  But they should not get more XP for figuring out the most bloodthirsty means of solving a problem for the same reason they should not get less XP for finding an easy path through extreme cleverness.</blockquote>

Verification