Giving out XP based on amount of damage sustained?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

Sovereign Court

I guess this would apply to really any version of D&D, but one thing that knocks about in my head is an old element in Middle Earth Role Playing, where players would earn xp for the damage they took.

That has stuck with me over the years, and after a recent game of Pathfinder where players coasted through several encounters that were rated as being "hard" for their level, I thought perhaps... instead of giving out xp based off of the potential threat of the encounter, why not give out xp based on the actual threat of the encounter?

That is, the more the characters take a beating, the more xp they get, regardless of whatever the encounter is rated at.

I haven't thought rigorously about how a system would work, but loosely you could, say, add up all of the hit points the party possesses. Then as the combat unfolds you just keep track of the total damage delivered to the party. Also note things such as failed saving throws, characters that go unconscious, how many spells and other resources are expended.

Add all of that up and that would yield how much the encounter was worth. So the ideal situation for players who wanted to get as many xp as possible would be to get beaten to within inches of their life as much as possible.

Has anyone done anything like this, or are there any system that are built around this method?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

Those poor poor wizards.

Sounds like you're trying to apply the Dragon Ball Z effect to the XP system. It looks rather overally complex for something to encourage your PC's to do badly or take suicidal missions.

Are you having trouble getting them to fight? or is everything dieing in one hit and you want them to actually get a little bloodied?


Rewarding a group for taking damage is basically rewarding poor tactics. Seems a bad idea to me, in particular if the group knows they are getting exp for taking damage.


That's an interesting concept, and could possibly work. However, there are a few things i'd watch out for.

The system seems like it is designed to imply that the more damage sustained by the party, the harder the encounter was, and award XP accordingly. There is a flw in that system though.

Sometimes a party can run into an easy situation and just bumble it. They plow through the traps without thinking, rush in without tactics, and generally just screw up an otherwise cakewalk encounter. Should they be awarded MORE experience for playing dumb?

By the same token, if the party figures out a clever way to deal with a situation and using guile, luck, trickery, smarts, etc, they defeat their opponents with barely a scratch, when most anyone else might have been pulverized. Should they be awarded LESS experience for playing smart?

It might also encourage less defensive play and more offensive play, instead of buffing up defensive spells and buying more protective armour, they might tend towards offensive spells and buffs, bigger weapons and other items. Not that this is necissarily a problem, mind you, but it might have an affect on how the campaign is played.

If xp is awarded based on damage taken, i'd also take care to divide that experience evenly across the board, rather than on an individual basis. Individually, characters such as wizards and sorcerors would get the short end of the stick, even though they may have contributed just as much if not more to the battle.


The problem I have with it is that the XP is now based off of the party's stats, not the monsters. Are you going to have your monsters optimized, or leave them as is - average?

Sovereign Court

I pulled out my old MERP rulebook and here is how xp were handed out with that system:

Hit points - get 1xp per hit point taken in battle.

Critical Hits - you got a certain amount of xp depending on how bad the critical hit was on your character. Players would often bemoan getting a lame "A" crit and cheer when they got an "E" crit, until I rolled on the chart and paused a moment, wondering if they just got killed... but I think that was some of the most fun moments as players trash talked to each other over the xp they were getting for the awful crits they survived.

You also got xp for delivering crits on opponents, but the big payouts were usually when you got hit.

Kill Points - You got a certain number of points for delivering the deathblow to an opponent. When the monster was really powerful the reward was pretty big. This was once again another great font of memories as players would yell at each other telling them not to kill the BBEG because they wanted to deliver the deathblow. I miss that kind of jockularity in games.

Manuever points - you got these for pulling off what are essentially skill checks.

Spells - If you cast a spell that was pertinent and effective in the encounter they you gained xp.

Idea Points - If you came up with a good idea then you got xp for that.

Travel Points - all the travel earned you xp also. Every 10 miles you traveled int new lands you got xp, and it was rated on how dangerous the area was that you traveled through.

Miscellaneous points - A grab bag for the DM to hand out. This was generally for making good strategic decisions, or developing a character story more, etc.

The overall result I remember from these games was that people didn't do min-max nonsense. Instead it was a gambling game. Players knew that if they went up against more challenging opponents and survived then they'd earn big.

Sovereign Court

Scipion del Ferro wrote:


Are you having trouble getting them to fight? or is everything dieing in one hit and you want them to actually get a little bloodied?

We play very optimized games and so getting them bloodied is harder than the rated system allows.

So it's more about creating an incentive system to get them to take more risks, rather than doing hyper optimized alpha strikes and the like.


I would think if your players are optimizers this is the worst sort of system. They are most likely to try and game the system for advantage. Why not as a GM just make more challenging encounters for them? Up the CR by one or two until you kill a player or two then back it down half a notch. Give all the creatures max HP.


I see this new system of your's as a terrible idea. Here's why:

Your party will now *require* an in-combat healer, effectively shunting a single player to the role of "party support." Congratulations, now one of your players is angry with you.

Your now reward the classes most capable of taking a hit (fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin) and severely cripple those classes least capable of taking a hit (sorcerer, wizard). Congratulations, now one/two more of your players are angry with you.

You now penalize the characters who avoid hits effectively by making their class features lower their earned XP (monk, fighter, barbarian). Congratulations, one more of your players is angry with you.

You now turn the party against the player who was able to quickly end the encounter by using her class feature designed to do just that (paladin, ranger, any caster), thus lowering the XP the party could receive. Congratulations, one/two/three more players are angry with you.

I hope that sorta illustrates it for you.


Had some ideas in that vein, but never implemented them.

To refine your proposal:
1) don't remove the regular XP rewards
2) give a bonus if the fight was tough (like +5% if a major spell slot was used, +10% if a magic item was consumed in order for the party to survive, +20% if a character fell unconscious, +50% if one was killed, etc.)
3) except in the case of a cleverly thought out and masterfully executed plan, remove some XP if the fight was too easy (like -50% if no damage was incurred, -25% if no spell was used, etc.)

However, the exponential progression of XP already shows that higher CR monster will be tougher while lower CR won't make the party advance much, so, what I wrote is kind of moot.

Liberty's Edge

It's not a terrible idea.

It is, however, a very significant change, and one that should be approached cautiously.

In the current game, if the 4 or 5 person party is competent, works together, and stays focused, they can get by without having a dedicated healer.

Having a Cleric or Druid or Paladin along is still necessary, due to diseases and ability damage and curses and plain unlucky streaks and so forth, but these classes should not have to devote ANY of their spells per day to ANY FORM of healing or curing WHATSOEVER during an adventuring day - carry around a wand of cure light wounds and a few scrolls, and if the party takes too much damage they have to spend two days resting instead of one.

Most of the time, most of the enemies should be either unable to attack anyone in the party, or stuck pounding on the persons who can best take it.

In pathfinder as written, if the party is taking lots of damage, they are doing something wrong.

Basing XP in whole or in part on how much damage each specific character takes represents a dramatic shift in game play. Classes like Barbarians and Fighters become amazing, and the Paladin is just flat out OverPowered. Healer becomes an even worse job - characters focused on spellcasting tend to be squishy and incompetent in melee, so healers get very little XP.

Basing XP in whole or in part on how much damage each specific character does is likewise bad. Spellcasters shouldn't be chucking fireballs at the enemy - a proper wizard will not have it prepared most of the time. What spellcasters do best is make the guys with weapons hit harder and move around easier, and make the enemies hit less hard and move around harder.

If you want to use something like this, the best method would be to track the total amount of damage prevented by the whole party, and split it up evenly. The Fighter prevents damage by putting his high AC in the enemies way and by killing mobs faster. The Wizard prevents damage by webbing, slowing, and cursing opponents and by making the Fighter hit harder.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

I can definitely see one issue:

Leeeroy Jekins!!!!!

Meaning you will get more TPKs as the party will see the "wisdom" of charging into combat in a berserker manner.

Now, if you entire party is composed of Barbarians, this might work ... for a while.


The problem I see, is the very paradigm of getting experience for killing things. As should be obvious from the responses, this is deeply imbedded. Altering that in any way is going to cause some growing pains.

I would suggest, if you are going to alter the XP mechanic that you should purposely and more directly award XP for behavior you want to encourage. You do not really want the PCs to take X amount of damage. You want them to take more risks. Therefore, you should reward XP for taking risks, whether successful or not.


It sounds like kind of an odd idea, turning the PCs into masochists.

So an inept character fighting a zombie could earn more XP than a talented character fighting a pit fiend? Huh.


I agree with the notion that you are advocating rewarding incompetence. Also, it is a game-able solution in any case. If the party already knows the rules inside and out, they will find a way around this.

If the challenges are too weak, up them. If they advance too fast in level, adjust that. Don't penalize people for smart tactics and wise play.

Sovereign Court

Lots of great responses!

Random things:

In terms of the difference between MERP and D&D, the crits in MERP were quite lethal and even the lowliest creature could make an amazing roll and deliver a death dealing crit in one hit. So in that regard there was definitely an incentive to shut down encounters as fast as possible and the players responded in that way.

In D&D, with its comfortable ablative armor of hit points you don't have as much urgency and so simply adpoting what MERP did wouldn't work.

Still, I think there is wiggle room. Xps for hit points taken isn't really a whole lot if it is just a 1 for 1 value. But if you increase the value of hit points taken when critted, say hit points x 5, then that helps to reward the nasty blows at a level that is worthwhile to pay attention to as a player. Other types of weighting of values could be done so that the risk/reward is emphasized.

While it worked for MERP to do things individually, in D&D it makes far more sense that a system like this was done where the total xp earned is pooled and then divided among the players. It's very true that if you used this kind of system and doled things out individually then there would be lots of problems with characters getting wildly different values.

As for players gaming the system... maybe its just coming out of old school gaming, but the DM filter always seemed to work fine here. People doing silly things like fireballing the party, or tossing themselves deliberately out of trees would just result in players getting hurt.

Of course, DMs might not want to put up with using a filter all the time. I weeded out crazed rules lawyers and abusive players starting when I was a teen back in the 80's, so I've avoided a lot of the nonsense that others might not be able to deal with or confront with problem players.

Some of the responses are interesting, because it helps to show off my own biases. I'm straining to think of a time when players actively tried to avoid combat, unless the plot was hitting them over the head saying "this is the sneak encounter" so the idea of people coming up with good ideas to avoid combat is almost completely alien to me. Players have always wanted to induce encounters because that is the main way xp are handed out.

Sure you get xp for completing quests or other fluffy stuff, but the real haul comes from the fights. As for xp for roleplaying? I've spent 30 years playing with gamists-at-heart and only can think of a handful of times when people truly roleplayed. We're pretty much a bunch of roll-players.

I guess the central point of trying some kind of system where risk is rewarded is that it tries to goad players away from shutting down encounters easily. If you are optimizing to the point where you cream the encounter before it got even interesting then the drama is fizziling out. I can acknowledge as a player that I enjoy doing that. The feeling of rationally breaking down the situation and then applying an plan that takes out the BBEG is satisfying, but when you have a table full of people doing that it tends to bleed a lot of drama out of the game.

I think the suggestion for a hybrid form between MERP and D&D style experience would work well. You get a flat amount based on CR, but you also get an amount depending on the amount of resources players spent or how close they succumbed to death. I'm sure the numbers could be mapped out so that the numbers aren't too far off from how they roll out now.

It's more of the psychological factor of giving players bonus points because they failed that will save, got critted or went to -9 xp. Those xp reflect them learning something, say, to duck better. There are plenty of psychological studies out there now that show that some of the most potent learning comes from when people learn from mistakes, and not from when they succeed.

As for things like skill checks, it just comes down to risk/reward. If you cross a narrow ledge over a lava pit then you'd get a good chunk of xp. If you jump over a stream to avoid 1d6 damage from a twisted ankle then not so much.

As for brilliant strategies. These things have always been part of the DM filter evaluation. A player who has an obnoxious character build who can walk in and cheesily shut down an encounter isn't going to get rewarded. But if you can think of a way to have that pillar topple on top of the dragon as it comes out of the entrance, then sure that should be rewarded. I haven't really seen any systematic way of rewarding good ideas though. It's always just been one of those catch all categories that the rules give to the DM.

Lets see... the last thing is death. I don't think it was in MERP, but in Rolemaster there was probably at the very least an optional rule where if you died and were resurrected you gained XP. D&D hurts you for this, but with Rolemaster it was more like you coming back as Gandalf the White in a certain way. You've died and now you come back all the wiser.


Story:
I like the concept of give XP based on participation. I had a guy played a cleric who would hole himself up in combat, wait til most his comrades to go negative, use his spells to mop up the rest, loot, THEN give out the healing. He got mad when his diety yanked his powers for acting out of alignment. He usually played a greedy rogue, but he still tried to use the "I'm the only one that matters" perspective as the only healer. I started giving out +5% XP for teamwork, let him atone, and let him know he either needed to pick another god or another character if he wanted to play it that way.

I put my example in spoiler for those that don't wanna hear the story. However, I'd like to see a bit of experience added for teamwork or a bigger reward for taking risks for your PC's life for teammates. I think the mechanics need a good bit of work, but the concept is good. I'd like to see what input is given on how this could reasonably work.


I understand the problem your running into. In my games, the GM is consistently throwing 2-3 CR+6 encounters at us a day, as we usually cake walk them. This results in a level almost every other session using the medium progression, which can be too fast for some.

We also recently had a new GM come in, and the CR system was pretty worthless to him. He had to keep throwing higher and higher stuff at us than the system recomended to give us any challenge (we cakewalked 1/2 dozen CR+4 encounters in a row), unil he ended up suprizing us with a CR+7 random encounter of dragons that resulted in TPK.

XP for damage taken isn't what I think your going for, so much as resources used. If you do it, you should also make sure to continue the middle earth policy of rewarding clever ideas, avoiding combat, and other things. And these things should outweigh the damage taken aspects.


I'm not a fan of the idea to be honest. I think a pair of rangers who spend time planning and stalking a tribe of goblins and kills them without taking any damage in a series of ambushes are more deserving of xp than a barbarian and a healbot who scream "come and get it" and just walk up to the goblins communal bonfire. But I digress.

Two big problems I see: you'd be punishing characters for having a high AC, and handling DR, SR and Energy resistance might be problematic. Would it be damage dealt or damage taken to calculate your XP?


I see rewarding PCs for taking damage and receiving critical hits as strange. Under normal circumstances, PCs get XP for killing monsters and taking their stuff. That involves active choices on the part of the PCs: engaging in combat, casting spells, setting traps, etc. Story awards are given out (generally) to reward PCs for doing specific things regarding the plot. But taking damage is passive and also out of the PCs control, at least until they figure out what's happening. You take damage because the DM's critter hit you, or you missed a Perception check and fell down a hole, etc. OK, the trap going off involves a die roll on the PCs part, but it's still odd to reward them for making you roll dice.

I am familar with the MERP system, it's the Rolemaster system, and I know those type E criticals are nasty. Glad I haven't been hit with them recently.

Also, as others have said, this system rewards those who have more hp and are likely to get into a position to take damage. Now this can be mitigated somewhat by using area effect spells, but now the PCs are going to burn up healing resources faster to get more XP as well, since they'll need healed more often as they likely try to gather just that much more XP. I can also see more PCs going into the dying/dead state as they underestimate their foes' hitting power. So now poor decision making will get a reward as well? I mean, you'd hope that anyone who lacks a masochistic streak would want avoid taking damage/getting hurt, but you're rewarding them for it. I guess my final question is this: how does this work in-game, in-character?


I know for 1 solution to battles being too easy, my DM has started penalizing us if we don't have enough encounters in the day or if we have time ahead of time to plan (if we plan or not)


Mok wrote:

I guess this would apply to really any version of D&D, but one thing that knocks about in my head is an old element in Middle Earth Role Playing, where players would earn xp for the damage they took.

That has stuck with me over the years, and after a recent game of Pathfinder where players coasted through several encounters that were rated as being "hard" for their level, I thought perhaps... instead of giving out xp based off of the potential threat of the encounter, why not give out xp based on the actual threat of the encounter?

That is, the more the characters take a beating, the more xp they get, regardless of whatever the encounter is rated at.

Here's a problem that came up last weekend when running a game with three first-level characters. Goblins were raiding farms on the edge of town. I wrote the dungeon in the expectation that the party would launch some sort of assault on the dungeon. Instead they hid out in a ruined farmhouse and ambushed a band of raiding goblins. Had I awarded XP for closeness to death, then the party would be penalized for skillful play.


Caineach wrote:

I understand the problem your running into. In my games, the GM is consistently throwing 2-3 CR+6 encounters at us a day, as we usually cake walk them. This results in a level almost every other session using the medium progression, which can be too fast for some.

We also recently had a new GM come in, and the CR system was pretty worthless to him. He had to keep throwing higher and higher stuff at us than the system recomended to give us any challenge (we cakewalked 1/2 dozen CR+4 encounters in a row), unil he ended up suprizing us with a CR+7 random encounter of dragons that resulted in TPK.

XP for damage taken isn't what I think your going for, so much as resources used. If you do it, you should also make sure to continue the middle earth policy of rewarding clever ideas, avoiding combat, and other things. And these things should outweigh the damage taken aspects.

In this case, to be honest, your DM may not be playing the monsters as intelligently as possible. An orc is smart enough to use whatever cover is available and smart enough to flee, giving the alarm to his comrades. An orc leader who has survived long enough to gather 1000 gp is probably smart enough to exchange half of them for healing potions or armor that exceeds the usual orc standard over the years before the party shows up.

Enough goblins to make a CR 6 encounter are enough goblins to include a spellcaster and a leader with some basic battle tactics (high ground, cover, reluctance to engage your party's tanks directly), with grunts split between archers and tanks (the goblins with more hitpoints serving as the tanks). The shaman will cast cure light wounds instead of causing them to keep the tanks swinging. The leader will skulk behind his "throne" shooting arrows +1 at any unarmored PC and guzzling his potions (about 30% of the value of the encounter's treasure). The grunts will shoot their arrows from the shadows, behind any convenient table. Most importantly, the grunt archers will be scattered and behind any cover available.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CourtFool wrote:
The problem I see, is the very paradigm of getting experience for killing things. As should be obvious from the responses, this is deeply imbedded.

It's really only embedded for those folks who absolutely refused to move beyond the 1st edition AD+D mindset which also awarded experience based on the gold pieces you came with out of an adventure. (and who still does that any more?) Folks who have played other games know that for the rest of the world, time has moved on. Pathfinder Network Play uses a radically different exp system. Each module you survive gives 1 XP. period. 3XP you move up a level. And given that success will frequently require you to do things other than bash someone's skull in, (frequently Faction goals which give you prestige points will turn on something other than combat and require flexibility in thought)


Yamaneko wrote:
Caineach wrote:

I understand the problem your running into. In my games, the GM is consistently throwing 2-3 CR+6 encounters at us a day, as we usually cake walk them. This results in a level almost every other session using the medium progression, which can be too fast for some.

We also recently had a new GM come in, and the CR system was pretty worthless to him. He had to keep throwing higher and higher stuff at us than the system recomended to give us any challenge (we cakewalked 1/2 dozen CR+4 encounters in a row), unil he ended up suprizing us with a CR+7 random encounter of dragons that resulted in TPK.

XP for damage taken isn't what I think your going for, so much as resources used. If you do it, you should also make sure to continue the middle earth policy of rewarding clever ideas, avoiding combat, and other things. And these things should outweigh the damage taken aspects.

In this case, to be honest, your DM may not be playing the monsters as intelligently as possible. An orc is smart enough to use whatever cover is available and smart enough to flee, giving the alarm to his comrades. An orc leader who has survived long enough to gather 1000 gp is probably smart enough to exchange half of them for healing potions or armor that exceeds the usual orc standard over the years before the party shows up.

Enough goblins to make a CR 6 encounter are enough goblins to include a spellcaster and a leader with some basic battle tactics (high ground, cover, reluctance to engage your party's tanks directly), with grunts split between archers and tanks (the goblins with more hitpoints serving as the tanks). The shaman will cast cure light wounds instead of causing them to keep the tanks swinging. The leader will skulk behind his "throne" shooting arrows +1 at any unarmored PC and guzzling his potions (about 30% of the value of the encounter's treasure). The grunts will shoot their arrows from the shadows, behind any convenient table. Most importantly, the grunt archers will be...

My GM does not pull punches. My party usually has 6 people in it.

2 recent lvl 1 encounters in the same day:

1 band of scouts: 12 kobolds + lvl3 inquisitor and lvl2 Alchemist. We stomped this without much trouble.

2 bands of scouts sans leader: 24 kobolds, the leaders of the 2 bands fled because of what we did to the first band. They suprized us and got 6 crits in on the first round with crossbows. 2 people went down durring the fight, but firing out of a fog cloud helped a lot.

at lvl 2: 21 troggladites, 6 of which were lvl3 casters. Encountered as a group of 14 and a group of 7 just before those 14 died (10 rounds I think). Our summoner died from a crit, but otherwise we would have been fine. We got a suprise round on these guys and were sniping from the bushes for a couple rounds, taking 2 out before they could hurt us. Then, they had trouble hitting our AC. I have a low AC for the party at 21.


Mok wrote:
I guess the central point of trying some kind of system where risk is rewarded is that it tries to goad players away from shutting down encounters easily.

And this system still fails to address that issue. You are coming at this from the logic that HP loss = risk or HP loss != easy. What exactly are you aiming for? Do you want your characters to be more challenged or do you want your players to run their characters like they are more than a pawn in a board game?

Challenging the PCs is the GM's responsibility. Getting the players to run their characters more like real people requires you to reward the behavior you want repeated. Rewarding HP loss just encourages them to hold back a few rounds and keep the Cleric handy.


Anyone else reminded of FF3? The game had the same system, and everyone who played would pick a fight, kill all but the weakest thing, set everyone to defend, and let the enemy hit them until they were a hair from death, at which time you killed the creature. Wat a great way to game the system!

Anyway, there are many "game" issues with using this rule. I do like to see XP awarded based on encounter difficulty, but that is very difficult to accomodate. A static system is usually a better substitute, as it encourages players to play to the best of their ability.

I also tend to give away more XP for story and RP than combat, so take all I say with a grain of salt...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

I had a DM that used to use an even more complicated formula...

He awarded a point for each point of damage taken. He awarded a point for each point of damage dealt.

He added these together for each character and then divided these by the total given to all characters. This percentage was then applied to total experience award earned by the party.

The result in that game was that we all wanted to be involved. No character ever held back or waited in the rear for others to do the heavy lifting. I found this group to be one of the most fun and engaged groups I ever played with.

I should note that as a DM I think it would be a nightmare to record.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Anyone else reminded of FF3? The game had the same system, and everyone who played would pick a fight, kill all but the weakest thing, set everyone to defend, and let the enemy hit them until they were a hair from death, at which time you killed the creature. Wat a great way to game the system!

Anyway, there are many "game" issues with using this rule. I do like to see XP awarded based on encounter difficulty, but that is very difficult to accomodate. A static system is usually a better substitute, as it encourages players to play to the best of their ability.

I also tend to give away more XP for story and RP than combat, so take all I say with a grain of salt...

Defend? No in FF3 you set your guys to attack themselves, as they gained HP if they were reduced below 1/2 their starting, Mp if they spent more than half, and weapon skill and stats for each attack they made. Defend was bad for you.


Caineach wrote:
Defend? No in FF3 you set your guys to attack themselves, as they gained HP if they were reduced below 1/2 their starting, Mp if they spent more than half, and weapon skill and stats for each attack they made. Defend was bad for you.

Ack, your right! Too many years since I last played the game. So can we get XP for spells used and hits landed as well?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, I think it is a bad idea for D&D.

However, it is "experience", not "stupidity". Here's what I would do. Sorry if I'm restating. I didn't read most of the previous posts.

Determine amount of damage dealt and subtract the amount of damage recieved. This will determine the effectiveness of your damage ratio. Avoiding damage is part of learning to be a better PC.

Include Saving Throw failures and successes multiplied by a factor and apply to both sides. For example, each failed saving throw x -10, each success as x 10. Remember, Healing is an accepted save, unless cast on undead.

Consider resources such as potions, scrolls, and charges as Saving Throws. Using your resources also promotes tactics. Having a negative assigned means you need to think of a better implementation.

Total all Damage and Saves for each side. Subtract the difference of the absolute value of the Bad guys. This is the bonus/penalty and add to the XP.

Ex:
Bad guys take 50 damage, succeed in 5 saves, fail 3 saves, and use 2 healing potions.

Good guys take 75 damage (some good crits), succeed 2 saves, fail 4 saves, and use 1 scroll (successful) and 2 healing potions.

Bad: 50 x-1 + 5 x10 + 3 x-10 + 2 x-10 = -50
Good: 75 x-1 + 2 x10 + 4 x-10 + (1 x10 + 2 x-10) = -105
Total: -50x-1 + -105 = -55 penalty

If this was reversed, they would gain 55 XP.

"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

EDIT: If you're playing 4e, I'd suggest a modifier for the failed (not on success) Death Saves. Maybe # x20 to get the point across. Losing a person is always bad news. Having a person drop is also a learning experience.

Healing Surges would go into the resources.


tdewitt274 wrote:
Formulae

Looking at the output, couldn't the bonus be jacked high in a mook fight? Fireball a score of lvl3 warriors, and the encounter is over, but..

Lvl 6 party vs 20 lvl 3 warriors. Fireball!

Warriors: +2 ref. Fireball: DC 17 (a decent DC at 6th level)

Averages, 5 successes, 15 failures. HP 19. Fireball dmg 21.

So far: 335dmg to enemy, 5 sucessful saves, 15 failed saves = 435

With 5 guys at 9hp apiece, the party will likely take NO damage.

Final score: 480. CR for encounter: 9. Total xp: 6,400 + 480.

You just gave them +480 xp, or 7.5%, for a trivial encounter.


tdewitt274 wrote:
Maths

Rolls on floor laughing.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
tdewitt274 wrote:
Formulae

Looking at the output, couldn't the bonus be jacked high in a mook fight? Fireball a score of lvl3 warriors, and the encounter is over, but..

Lvl 6 party vs 20 lvl 3 warriors. Fireball!

Warriors: +2 ref. Fireball: DC 17 (a decent DC at 6th level)

Averages, 5 successes, 15 failures. HP 19. Fireball dmg 21.

So far: 335dmg to enemy, 5 sucessful saves, 15 failed saves = 435

With 5 guys at 9hp apiece, the party will likely take NO damage.

Final score: 480. CR for encounter: 9. Total xp: 6,400 + 480.

You just gave them +480 xp, or 7.5%, for a trivial encounter.

I think it would be better to reverse it, but as Courtly Fool summarizes: Maths. Too much math to bother with I think. Arbitrarily reducing the CR down by 2 would be more appropriate I think. (-1 preparedness, -1 terrain)

Sovereign Court

Ah the old "Bang Your Head On The Wall To Attain Godhood" effect. No thanks.

Reminds me of when Ultima Online was the only MMORPG in town. Many were the nights of dueling with your buddy with rusty butcher knives wearing only loincloths to become master swordsmen, or casting Wall of Fire and standing in it to get your magic saves up. Ugh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tdewitt274 wrote:
Well, I think it is a bad idea for D&D.

All valid points. I'd just like to point out this quote ; ) In no way do I condone using the formula. Just felt the urge to have a little fun with numbers.

Remember, back in the "old days", you received XP for GP.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Giving out XP based on amount of damage sustained? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.