Would you give XP for this?

[Elder-Basilisk]

What, this? ;-)
"An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all...."

The paladin used up none of his available resources. It was a non-encounter by the time he got to it.

Nonsense. That particular statement from the DMG should be taken in the theoretical sense: an encounter that could reasonably be expected to use up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all.

If it is interpreted the way you seem to suggest, a (average) 3rd level party should get no XP for fighting a fiendish 6th level cleric--because the bard cast hold person on the cleric on round 1, beat his SR, and the cleric rolled a 3 on the save (if he'd rolled a 5, he'd have been fine). Total resources expended: 1 2nd level spell. Not much of the party's resources all things considered. But it could have been a much tougher encounter had things been different. That same group of PCs doesn't get any more experience for the previous encounter (3 ethereal marauders) just because I rolled 4 crits in a row in the first two rounds (all but one confirmed). Why should they get less because my dice abandoned me?

As to the paladin and the traps in question, I'm somewhat revising my thoughts. The relevant question is this: could they have reasonably been expected to cause a generic party to expend resources? That's definitely true of the Contagion trap. The other two traps, however, might not have really been a threat to the party no matter what had happened earlier. In that case they would qualify as non-encounters.

 

[Pielorinho]

The relevant question is this: could they have reasonably been expected to cause a generic party to expend resources?

Exactly. Consider that for an average trap, a rogue of the appropriate level (and with maxed-out skills and masterwork thieves' tools) can take 20 on a search check and 10 on a disable device check and take the trap out. This expends no resources at all, not even spells or once-per-day powers. Yet it's built into the system. Does this mean that an average party (with a decent rogue in it) should get no XP for a trap with a CR appropriate to the party level?

Of course not.

Similarly, this paladin should get XP for the traps listed (although Basilisk makes a good point, that an average party won't be threatened by a holy smite trap, and therefore that one should have its EL adjusted down to nothing).

Daniel

 

[RigaMortus]

Consider that for an average trap, a rogue of the appropriate level (and with maxed-out skills and masterwork thieves' tools) can take 20 on a search check and 10 on a disable device check and take the trap out. This expends no resources at all, not even spells or once-per-day powers.

I would personally qualify TIME as a resource.

 

[RigaMortus]

If a whole fricken party gets xp for getting hit by this lame trap, how can the same paladin, walking down the same cooridor, without his buddies, get no xp?

You just answered your own question...

After all, another person mentioned that an immune party member still gets xp in other situations, because they risk losing needed party members.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Then shouldn't the Paladin get exp for all the other traps that were never encountered, as well as all the monsters in the dungeon that were never encountered? I mean, he was "lucky" enough to get through the dungeon without having to set off every trap and fight through every room, why should he be penalized, right? He deserves just as much exp as another PC who adventured through every encounter in the dungeon.

There are two answers to your question:

(1) I used "lucky" in quotes for a particular reason: there is no luck involved. By chosing to be a paladin he has earned a certain set of immunities (by spending resources in the pregame). Luck is a non-issue when the real question is whether a PC should be allowed to be both rewarded and punished for his choices. If you refuse to allow the PC to reap both the positive and negative rewards for conscious choices, you are undermining the fundamental fairness of the game.

(2) As an alternative (house rule) system it is perfectly reasonable to give xp based on the overall challenge of a scenario and not sweat the small details of whether the PC triggered, say, 5 traps or 6 in a large complex. The main advantage of doing so is you do not reward players for tedious and/or stupid play. The problem with not giving the paladin xp is the exact opposite: a DM who is can't see the forest throught the trees and wants to award xp based on which PC triggered which trap, how, and why. That is micromanaging the game. Why not start docking xps for rolling well, too?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Nonsense. That particular statement from the DMG should be taken in the theoretical sense: an encounter that could reasonably be expected to use up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all.

Would you reward a player who talks some NPC out of his suicide plans? He won't expend his resources (except he charms him or something), and is in no danger. Would you reward him if he doesn't succeed, but has made a good attempt?

I would, in both cases (though more in case a))

You see, it's not just about danger, it's about accomplishment, and the ability to learn from the encounter.

 

[Pielorinho]

I would personally qualify TIME as a resource.

Then it gets even weirder. Our paladin friend, on being uselessly targeted by a contagion spell, shouts, "Fiddle dee dee!" (or whatever righteous people shout instead of "Crap on a stick!") and draws his sword and advances more cautiously down the corridor, every round making a 5' move and a search check. Now does the paladin get experience for the trap, since it's expending his time?

Daniel

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The righteous usually cry something along the lines of "son of a mother", or "holy cow". Being forbidden to curse doesn't mean they can't be inventive ;-)

 

[Pielorinho]

"holy cow". Being forbidden to curse doesn't mean they can't be inventive ;-)

Unless, of course, he worships Mithras.

I realize that my previous example (of a paladin advancing cautiously) is still missing the point. The point is that you shouldn't evaluate whether it DOES take up the party's resources: you should evaluate whether it would take up the average party's resources. As the DMG makes clear, you evaluate ELs of encounters based on the encounter's intrinsic difficulty and NOT on the party's ability to overcome an encounter. Once you start figuring the party's abilities into your EL, you depart from the DMG's rules for evaluating ELs.

Daniel

 

[Shard O'Glase]

From the DMG, p167:

Overcoming the challenge of a trap involves encountering the trap, either by disarming it, avoiding it, or simply surviving the damage it deals. A trap never discovered or never bypassed was not encountered (and hence grants no XP award).

That's the most moronic rule(IMO ). The simply surviving damage part. Blundering into things and taking damage shouldn't get you XP(neither should blunding into damagind thins to which you are immune). Doing something to overcome the encounter should. If you just blunder into the trap the trap overcame you and no XP should be gained.