XP for non-challenging challenges

[Thanee]

It also does not really change EL. EL is - for example - what you use to determine treasure, so it cannot really be altered by situational modifiers like this.

Should Challenge Ratings be lowered for "quick" fights?

For my games, I have been lowering the XP for fights that done in 1 round, but would like other people's opinions.

Absolutely not.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Michael Silverbane]

It also does not really change EL. EL is - for example - what you use to determine treasure, so it cannot really be altered by situational modifiers like this.

These sorts of situations tend to be set up in advance, by the DM, who is also incontrol of how much treasure is going to be dispersed to the party... So... Why not?

Also... CR is more of a guideline than it is a hard and fast rule. It is what the designers think is going to be a moderate challenge to a standard four-character party. So... If your CR 15 critter turns out not to be a CR 15 critter after all, feel free to give whatever xp you think is appropriate. Use a lower CR than listed if the monster was weaker than you thought it should have been, or use a higher level for the party members if you thought the abilities they used were more powerful than standard.

Remember that not all rewards have to be numerical. If someone trounces your monster without even breaking a sweat, he earns bragging rights among the gaming group (and, if you desire, within the fantasy world of the game, as well). The fighter could develop a fan-club, or better yet, an emnity with the friends/relatives of the critter that he killed in such a spectaculr fashion, as they vow to slay the knave who so ruthlessly sucker-punched their buddy/father/aunt-in-law and has been smearing his name ever since. What's better than more enemies?

Later
silver

 

[Drowbane]

I had a lvl 2 solo a CR 4 due to a string of lucky crits with a greataxe (two in a row, near max damage. Everybody at the table was floored, self included).

Since this fight was "easy", would you have given full xp?

For example, recently my party stomped a set of Dark Creepers and Dark Stalkers, it wasn't even a challenge. However, our DM didn't use thier stealth to set up flanks to get the sneak attack flowing... if he had somebody likely would've died. Perhaps multiple somebodies.

 

[amethal]

If you want to run a game in which all the PCs constantly fight defensively, dragging out the combat long beyond the point of tedium, then penalising swift kills seems like a good way to achieve this.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMNSHO the best practice is for the DM to figure out appropriate XP without regard to the precise particulars of the party (while taking into account the general style of the campaign which may influence the overall power level of the party and appropriate rate of levelling).

If you punish your players for "good luck", then logically you should reward them for "bad luck". If you do this you will inadvertently reward stupidity and the players gaming the DM. That can only lead to madness. Do not go there.

Another related topic is how to handle specialized abilities.

Should you give your party fewer xp for fighting Undead when they happen to have a high Charisma Cleric who can vaporize his foe with a wave of a his holy symbol? In general, no. That PC spent a lot of precious resources to be effective at crushing Undead. Presumably that Cleric is slightly less effective against some other kind of threat.

Likewise, in general, do not give more xp if the party lacks some particular ability. Fighting Undead and you have no Cleric or Paladin? Tough cookies! Some parties, frex, are great a hammering away with Keen weapons and Sneak Attack. They are better at killing other foes. If the PCs as a group chose to stack up similar strengths and weaknesses in the same party, let them reap the rewards (luck crits downing enemies in Round 1) and pay the price (trouble with Undead, elementals, etc.).

But those are just rules of thumb. I would reconsider if the campaign specialized in fighting particular enemies.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

If you want to run a game in which all the PCs constantly fight defensively, dragging out the combat long beyond the point of tedium, then penalising swift kills seems like a good way to achieve this.

You can also give less xp to charatcers who cruise through a fight. An easy fight is an easy fight, no matter how long it takes, and should be rewarded accordingly.

See the great thing about having a person in charge of the game is that he can make decisions based on more than one criteria. Did the fight use up some of the characters' resources? no... It might not have been as challenging as I originally estimated... Did the characters seem to be in danger of dying? no... It might no have been as challenging as I originally estimated... Did the characters make fun of, toy with, or otherwise goof around during the fight? yes... It might not have been as challenging as I originally estimated.

Having one character just plain slaughter your bad guy is a completely different situation than having a stroke of luck hand over a victory that might otherwise have been in question... A string of critical hits, or some other fortuitous event should be rewarded in kind, but if you continually reward your players for encounters that they simply walk through, those rewards become all but meaningless.

Later
silver

 

[ThirdWizard]

So should the PCs get less experience if the DM isn't as tactically minded as the Players? After all, all combats will become easier than the listed CR if the DM isn't playing them as effectively as their opposition.

 

[Space Coyote]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

If you punish your players for "good luck",

To expand upon this, what about situations where the fight was easy for the party, not out of luck, but due to their equipment is geared towards that particular enemy? For example if the party frequently encounters evil outsiders and has Evil Outsider bane weapons and/or Holy weapons.

In my current game, the main fighter keeps a Gauntlet of Rust. Every Iron Golem they encounter goes: Melee touch (versus AC 8), Reflex save (Golem has a Ref save of around +3), then poof, a pile of rust.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.



To expand upon this, what about situations where the fight was easy for the party, not out of luck, but due to their equipment is geared towards that particular enemy? For example if the party frequently encounters evil outsiders and has Evil Outsider bane weapons and/or Holy weapons.

In my current game, the main fighter keeps a Gauntlet of Rust. Every Iron Golem they encounter goes: Melee touch (versus AC 8), Reflex save (Golem has a Ref save of around +3), then poof, a pile of rust.

You cant penalise PC's because they equipped well for the creatures they encounter.

So they have outsider bane weapons, outsiders can hire non-outsiders. Dont use iron Golems, use something else.

As someone stated above, a High Charisma Cleric shouldn't be penalised because he thought ahead, and happens to be good at fighting undead.

However, have you gauged the PC's EL correctly? to much good gear could give them a real edge, the CR of the encounter might be 15, but with thier gear you might class the PC's as 16, meaning they would get less XP anyway.

Feegle Out

 

[Infiniti2000]

To expand upon this, what about situations where the fight was easy for the party, not out of luck, but due to their equipment is geared towards that particular enemy? For example if the party frequently encounters evil outsiders and has Evil Outsider bane weapons and/or Holy weapons.

No difference. That's just another 'luck' factor. If you want help on this issue in your campaign, though, let us know.

In my current game, the main fighter keeps a Gauntlet of Rust. Every Iron Golem they encounter goes: Melee touch (versus AC 8), Reflex save (Golem has a Ref save of around +3), then poof, a pile of rust.

Iron golems are notoriously trivial. The more common method is polymorph-->rust monster.