Would you give XP for this?

[hammymchamham]

If a character isn't threatened by an encounter, or does not have to take obvious steps to overcome an ecounter, or utilize resources to overcome it, then he or she shouldn't get XP.

So if a party composed of a rogue, a wizard, a cleric and a half-gold dragon fight an elemental savant of Fire, and the Elemental Savant throws a few fireballs, the half-gold dragon gets 0 xp where as everyone gets XP, since the half-gold dragon wasn't threatened by the encounter? I can see how that would go over.

DM: Ok Chuck, Bob and Jim, you get 1000 XP. You don't get any Lou.

Lou: What?

Or if Bob the Cleric had a ring of fire restance, he wasn't threatened so he gets 0 xp

This is not the same as making a save. IMC, saves fail on a 1. Always. So, the clumsiest trap still threatens even the best rogue (He blinked. He tripped. He had an off day. He was daydreaming about his girlfriend. It doesn't matter.) Hit points and spells are both expendable resources -- if you use them now, you don't have them later.

Immunities are not expendable resources, and the things that you're immune to don't threaten you. If an archer kills a monster that -can't- threaten him, he shouldn't gain anymore XP than he would for shooting a straw target. And if a paladin walks through a series of traps that he's automaticly immune to under all circumstances, then he shouldn't get anymore XP than he does for walking down the street.

Cheers
Nell.

Immunities ARE expending resources. If i play a Half Dragon, I spent 3 (or more) of my levels in my class to get that template for the immunity, as mentioned other times

If I buy a ring of fire resistance, I spent gold AND a magic item slot.

So if I'm an archer in the group, let loose a few arrows (that might have cost my a few silver peices) at a monster the front line fighters are in melee off, I get no XP since that monster wasn't threatening me? Give me a break. I'm glad things are not as such in the games I play in.

 

[Nellisir]

So if a party composed of a rogue, a wizard, a cleric and a half-gold dragon fight an elemental savant of Fire, and the Elemental Savant throws a few fireballs, the half-gold dragon gets 0 xp where as everyone gets XP, since the half-gold dragon wasn't threatened by the encounter? I can see how that would go over.

So if I'm an archer in the group, let loose a few arrows (that might have cost my a few silver peices) at a monster the front line fighters are in melee off, I get no XP since that monster wasn't threatening me? Give me a break. I'm glad things are not as such in the games I play in.

I was afraid someone would take it that way.

This is how I understood the original situation. The paladin was the ONLY character. The paladin was LEAVING.

Neither of your two situations is the same. Elemental savants have far more resources to draw upon than just "a few fireballs". The elemental savant DOES threaten the half-gold. They also threaten the half-gold's companions, which directly affects its chances of survival in later encounters. The traps in the original hypothesis had no effects that could affect the paladin, and the paladin had no companions that could be affected by the traps.

The same applies to the archer. The death of the archer's companions would allow the monsters to directly threaten the archer himself. The monster CAN threaten the archer.

This is a pretty narrow ruling. If there is no reasonable, possible threat to the character, there shouldn't be XP. Because of the unusual situation, the paladin had no reasonable and possible threat from the traps. Both the half-gold and the archer faced reasonable AND possible threats*. (And, frankly, a encounter would have to be either a unintelligent trap or a straw target dummy to not think of SOME way to threaten a character...)

And a permanent blanket immunity isn't "expending resources". It's "resources expended". If a character gained, by some act of incredible DM exageration, immunity to "everything", that character should not be rewarded with further XP for simply walking around and pulling out treasure. No risk, no reward, and the only reward that really matters in the metagame of D&D is XP**.

Cheers,
Nell.

*And yes, a straw target dummy could, possibly, threaten a character. But not reasonably.

**yes, fun matters to the player, and treasure matters to the character. But neither -advances- the character (at least, not since the 5gp=1xp equation was removed). If you get XP for roleplaying (and you should), that's great. I'm not saying roleplaying isn't fun, rewarding, and good. But if you roleplay, and the character never advances/changes in abilities (except possibly accumulating stuff), then it's really just an acting exercise, not D&D. Accumulating stuff is good too (and you should), but alone it's a poor way of measuring a character's advancement, since a skillful thief can quickly move you all the way back down to naught.

 

[hammymchamham]

sorry, can you explain how a mid-level (lets just say Charecter level 13) elemental savant of fire (that just happened to have fire spells that day prepared) can possibly threaten a half-gold dragon?

it still does not address how you seem to run things when you say

If a character isn't threatened by an encounter

Thats a wide range. If I am the archer, and just sit back, and my fighter friends fell the beast in one round, I wasn't threatened. The beast never swiped at me, and I never attacked it.

This is how I understood the original situation. The paladin was the ONLY character. The paladin was LEAVING.

Did I say otherwise. No. But my example has NOTHING to do with the Paladins example. I presented two OTHER examples in response to your comments about XP from encounters, a very general statement.


As you said:

The monster CAN threaten the archer

This is not what you have stated we should use to grant XP. As you said

If a character isn't threatened by an encounter, or does not have to take obvious steps to overcome an ecounter, or utilize resources to overcome it, then he or she shouldn't get XP.

So is it if the character CAN be threatened, or if the charecter [/b]IS threatened they earn XP?

Sounds like trying to expend resources to become immune to something is a waste of time. It may save the charecters life, but they won't advance.

 

[Nellisir]

sorry, can you explain how a mid-level (lets just say Charecter level 13) elemental savant of fire (that just happened to have fire spells that day prepared) can possibly threaten a half-gold dragon?

Hit him with a rock. Rolls a 20, crits, does 6pnts damage x2, and kills the poor bugger, who only had 2 hp left. (And, if the savant only prepared fire spells, the savant may have to address the possibility he's not very bright.) Or, summon a fire elemental (which does slam damage).

Thats a wide range. If I am the archer, and just sit back, and my fighter friends fell the beast in one round, I wasn't threatened. The beast never swiped at me, and I never attacked it.

It is a wide range, and I tried to clarify it with the second post. Threatened here doesn't mean "approached with melee or ranged weapon range". It means "is there a way this encounter can hurt this character?" In the paladin's case, no. The traps simply can't hurt the paladin. He has no allies that might be injured, and the traps simply can't touch him. He CANNOT be hurt. He is immune. The archer is not nearly so lucky. It is both possible and reasonable (that is, within the bounds of reason) that the monster might instead fell his friends, or overrun them, or dimension door past them. He is in danger.

...my example has NOTHING to do with the Paladins example. I presented two OTHER examples in response to your comments about XP from encounters, a very general statement.

As you said, your examples have nothing to do with the paladin. Different contex altogether.

So is it if the character CAN be threatened, or if the charecter IS threatened they earn XP?

If the character CAN be threatened, then he IS threatened. The savant could run away and come back tomorrow with a more intelligent selection of spells.

Sounds like trying to expend resources to become immune to something is a waste of time. It may save the charecters life, but they won't advance.

Not at all. The circumstances are very few in which a character is utterly immune to an encounter. Most of the time, immunity to one form of attack merely means the threat is reduced, not eliminated altogether. If the threat is present, the character should get XP. At worst, the character's allies are threatened, and their death would be a threat to his continued survival in further encounters. Ergo, he is threatened.

Also, unless you are immune to "everything", you can be hurt by something, and a smart DM will include that in an adventure, rather than just letting your character walk through it without breaking a sweat. Any DM that includes enough encounters to which a character is -immune- so as to threaten the character's advancement needs to take a few more classes at DM school.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Archer]

If the encounter could threaten any character then it is supposed to be worth the same xp to every character (of the same level). If no possible character could be hindered by the encounter then its not worth xp.

Are there just 1 or 2 trolls who would argue for a house rule that traps don't give xp? Wouldn't this make this thread end up in the house rules section?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

After seriously debating this issue with myself, I've decided to add the following to my list of house rules...

1) One arrow on person at all times. No more.
2) No 5-foot steps.
3) Three partial actions make a full-round action.
4) A full-round action is 7 seconds, not 6.
5) A Wish or Miracle spell can grant any of the following with a single casting: 10 feats, +5 to BAB, a template that does not actually modify your ECL.
6) Mind Blank protects against everything, even fireball.
7) Mirror Image can be used to create a dancing chorus line that forces your victims to roll 5d100. A result of 2 or higher means that your victim can't attack you that round, that you can flank them with a +25 bonus to attacks, they lose their Dex bonus, suffer a circumstance penalty to AC equal to 8x the number of images you have.
8) Drawing an item from a HHH is a full-day action, unless you know exactly what pocket the item is in, in which case it's a full-day action minus 2 full rounds, which is 14 seconds, not 12.
9) You can sneak attack only once per round (the rogue is broken).
10) Fighters get 2 bonus feats every level (the fighter is broken).
11) The Ranger's favored enemy bonus is multiplied by 5, applies to attack rolls too, and can harm even creatures immune to critical hits, and there is no range limit, and finally, they get a bonus feat every other level (the ranger is broken).
12) Sorcerers can cast twice as many spells per day as shown in the PH (the sorcerer is broken).
13) Wizards can't cast spells at all (the wizard is broken).
14) Clerics get a d2 for hit die (the cleric is broken).
15) Paladins aren't changed at all (the paladin is perfect).
16) Druids can no longer wild shape (it's a stupid ability).
17) The bard is no longer an available class (they suck anyway).
18) No XP.

Seems that kreynolds, the god of cynicism and sarkasm, is back. And 'bout time. Some people don't get the meaning of the simple word experience...

 

[Pielorinho]

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).

Later, it says:

Just because the PCs are worn down from prior encounters does not mean that later (more difficult) encounters should gain higher awards. Judge the difficulty of an encounter on its own merits

[emphasis added]

So in our situation:
1) The PC survived the damage dealt by the trap; it was discovered (I assume the PC realized the trap went off, as I stated in a previous post), and it was bypassed. The PC gets XP.
2) The PCs were definitely worn down from prior encounters: most of them were dead. Had the trap been much tougher because most of them were dead, you shouldn't grant higher awards -- you should just the encounter on its own merits. In this case, however, the encounter is much easier because most of them were dead. Again, you should judge the encounter on its own merits.



Daniel

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I wouldn't for the Holy Smite because he did nothing to survive this trap save have a good alignment as in the spell was not directed nor was it meant to stop a Paladin or other good character in any way. I dont' even know why a person would set up a magic trap with Holy Smite to go off if good characters come in contact with it. Seems kind of strange to me.

I would for the other two traps because were it not for his class abilities, he would have been affected. Though it does not say it specifcally, I believe that an effect still attempts to affect the person involved. For example, when the contagion goes off, I see the disease as still attacking the Paladin, but due to the power given unto him by his god, the disease simply dies before affecting the Paladin.

The spell still has an effect, but does not affect the Paladin.

 

[hammymchamham]

Nellisir,

Just curious, if the Half-gold dragon and his party where walking along a corridor and a fireball trap goes off, would the half-gold dragon get XP? The trap does not threaten him and can not threaten him.

 

[Nellisir]

If the encounter could threaten any character then it is supposed to be worth the same xp to every character (of the same level). If no possible character could be hindered by the encounter then its not worth xp.

Exactly. Since the paladin is a party of 1, and he's not threatened (or hindered), he gets no XP.

XP is usually calculated by CR. CRs are adjusted depending on circumstances. An encounter with no hazard of failure, no risk, no danger, has to be effectively CR 0. There's no challenge to rate.

Cheers
Nell.

Who thinks traps should get XP for defeating parties.