|
Inspired by another discussion, I thought this could use its own thread:
When do you feel it is appropriate to lower the CR/XP award after the fight is over?
I do this from time to time if I think the players have had way too easy a time with an opponent - that is, the opponent was defeated because (for story or plot reasons or extenuating circumstances or whatever) it was behaving stupidly or was in a tactically inferior situation.
If the party is responsible for that situation through smart play, that's another thing - but once in a while the opponent winds up defeating itself (usually because I as the DM make some truly boneheaded tactical mistake) and the party has a walkover of what is supposed to be a high CR challenge. In that case, I will often artificially lower the CR of the monster after the fight when awarding XP. I usually inform the players when I do this, and explain the reason why. So far, they haven't had a problem with it.
Wow cut into the party's rewards because you made a tactical mistake? I would never do this.
What actual harm comes if you let them have the xp? You're hung up on the principle that challenge and reward have to be equivalent. If you're going to arbitrarily change xp values based on how hard you think they're trying/how well they're doing, why not just use the freeform experience variant Paizo suggests and not play games with the numbers along the way, potentially bugging your players?
3.x has always allowed DMs to modify the CR based upon field conditions. The CR of ranged foes goes up if the PCs can't easily engage in combat, the CR of melee foes decreases if they don't have flying and the PCs do.
I generally make those changes ahead of time rather than post combat as I assume that a certain percentage of encounters will deviate from the expected outcome simply due to the multiplicity of random rolls and bad tactical decisions.
I assume that as often as the NPCs get hosed the PCs would get hosed as well. I probably wouldn't increase the reward of an encounter if it proved more difficult than expected so as a result I would prefer not to penalize the PCs for it going their way.
I only lower the CR, when they face an already weakened/poisoned/diseased - etc - Oponent.-
If i made a tactical mistake, is my fault not theirs... That reminds me when my group almost killed an ancient dragon -blue- that went to trade blows with an Ubber buffed falchion wielder fighter... He got lucky and confirmed 4 crits in a row.- 3 + 1 from haste.-
8/10 of the dragon´s HP went in the 1st round of that char. The party pwnd the dragon in 1 round.-
Again, my fault, yet those things raises the players morale and confidence, and once in a while ill let them have a dumber foe.- (Yet, no more stupid dragons for them... xD)
|
|
Again, if the party managed to swing the odds heavily in their favor by playing smart, then I certainly wouldn't reduce the XP award for that.
However, I am loathe to just hand the party XP on a platter. Most of the time it's not an issue. However, there are a few things I think are necessary for an encounter to deem it a legitimate challenge:
- Did the party expend resources defeating the challenge? (I include things like hit points and spells here)
- Did the party lose important time dealing with it?
- Did the party need to make any difficult/interesting decisions?
If a monster springs from ambush and yells "Rarragh!" and then three rounds later it's dead and none of the good guys got hurt, I would not consider that its actual CR for that fight was equal to the party's APL. If the CR was supposed to be lower than the party's APL, then no problem. If the CR was supposed to be equal to more more than the APL, then I would consider lowering it.
There is a section about adjusting CR for favorable unfavorable conditions / terrain in the GM section (page 398). If you as the GM make a tactical error then I would say chalk it up to your own learning curve and give them what they should have for the CR. The way you are presenting it (it may not be what you mean and I do understand that) is that you are penalizing the players for your foibles as a GM that seems to be GM-player adversarial vs characters-enemies adversarial.
Again, if the party managed to swing the odds heavily in their favor by playing smart, then I certainly wouldn't reduce the XP award for that.
I agree with this sometimes I didnt design the encounters well enough or the players are simply very well prepared for the situation, or come up with a great idea. That is no reason to reduce their reward.
However, I am loathe to just hand the party XP on a platter. Most of the time it's not an issue. However, there are a few things I think are necessary for an encounter to deem it a legitimate challenge:
- Did the party expend resources defeating the challenge? (I include things like hit points and spells here)
- Did the party lose important time dealing with it?
- Did the party need to make any difficult/interesting decisions?
You are getting inconsistent here. Is it not possible through solid tactics to expend fewer resources or time on a challenge? And in terms of time, most encounters are literally neglagable. They can make up the time of almost any encounter, by walking slightly faster through the next corridor. How does this have any bearing on CR?
If a monster springs from ambush and yells "Rarragh!" and then three rounds later it's dead and none of the good guys got hurt, I would not consider that its actual CR for that fight was equal to the party's APL. If the CR was supposed to be lower than the party's APL, then no problem. If the CR was supposed to be equal to more more than the APL, then I would consider lowering it.
Again this is inconsistent with your original expectations doesnt mean you should reduce the xp reward. It is the set up that matter for adjusting CR, not the result. Much of the game is based on chance, it isn't fair to give results based on the outcomes of those chances. You could do the exact same actions round by round 10 time, and end up with 10 different results.
First time around, fighter crits his first hit, wizard rolls near max on a fireball, rogue hits with 3 sneak attacks flanking with the fighter, encounter over quickly. Second time, Fighter misses first attack, wizard rolls very little on his fireball, rogue fails his acrobatics rolls to get past the bad guy and gets walloped with a status penalty and thus misses his first attacks, Suddenly it is a much 'harder' fight that will last longer and cause more resources to be expended. It is a complete jerk move on the part of the dm to penalize the party for this variation.
If the party ambushes a sleeping enemy, or they have lots of time to prep for an encounter, sure, lower the CR for those PRE-EXISTING circumstances. Circumstances created during the encounter (by party tactics or by luck of the dice) should not impact the reward they get in terms of XP. Your perception of how 'hard' the encounter is shouldn't have anything to do with the XP given out.
I wouldn't change the awards. In my last campaign, I underestimated the party and threw a APL+1 CR encounter at them. They stomped it - hard. Turns out the NPCs I statted out weren't very good, especially since everybody had above average ability scores. To make things worse, they managed to get on the good side of a few Ogres that were all too happy to help beat the snot out of their orc slavers.
|
|
You are getting inconsistent here. Is it not possible through solid tactics to expend fewer resources or time on a challenge? And in terms of time, most encounters are literally neglagable. They can make up the time of almost any encounter, by walking slightly faster through the next corridor. How does this have any bearing on CR?
Absolutely, solid tactics are not a reason to penalize XP.
If the party is pressed for time (in a pursuit, trying to stop the doomsday device), then any encounter, no matter the challenge, will "count" even if it's a 3-round walkover.
Again this is inconsistent with your original expectations doesnt mean you should reduce the xp reward. It is the set up that matter for adjusting CR, not the result. Much of the game is based on chance, it isn't fair to give results based on the outcomes of those chances. You could do the exact same actions round by round 10 time, and end up with 10 different results.
First time around, fighter crits his first hit, wizard rolls near max on a...
I feel I haven't made myself clear on this, so I'll provide an actual real-world example:
I had an encounter designed which took place on an icy mountainside path between the party and a slightly modified Stone Giant. THere's a slight gap in the path which the party needed to cross to get to the Giant. Combat was joined: the Stone Giant tosses a boulder, the party responds with arrows, etc. I don't recall all the specifics, because it was a while ago, but it was in the 2nd or third round, the giant needed to make a balance check for some reason - I think I may have been trying to have him cross the gap, because the players wouldn't. I roll my dice openly on the table - the rolled a 1 for the giant, when had he rolled anything else, it would have been fine. Instead, he fell into the ravine and, after a failing a reflex save and suffering a particularly bad damage roll, ended up dead.
It was supposed to have been a challenging encounter. Instead, it was a moment of comedy which the players laughed about for some time. I suppose the players did the smart thing by not crossing the gap, but at the same time, the giant (me) got cocky, rolled poorly, and ended the encounter much earlier than it should have been. I reduced the CR of the Giant by 1 or 2 due to him being preternaturally unlucky. Nobody complained - they were all laughing too hard.
Another more recent example involved a cockatrice. The party had fought a group of bandits and forced them back into a cave - the bandits had a captive cockatrice, which they goaded out into the cave in an attempt to forestall the party. They party knew they had the cockatrice, they new what was happening, were prepared for it, and the thing lasted 1 round before being cut down by ranged attacks. It was not a planned encounter, and was kind of a stupid combat (although in keeping with the INT of the bandits, who's leader had been killed in the previous fight). I reduced the CR of the cockatrice by 1, because in the game it had provided about as much of a challenge as if the bandits had tossed a regular chicken at the party. Again, the combat lasted all of 5 real-world minutes, and nobody complained - there were other more interesting encounters to be had that day.
I think that the operative principle here is that I don't see this as penalizing the party at all. I do a lot of DMing on the fly, so many of my encounters are not planned in detail. (Not that DMing is an exact science, anyway.) I suppose you could say that I'm retconning the CR because in hindsight I can take into account variables that I couldn't beforehand?
I feel I haven't made myself clear on this, so I'll provide an actual real-world example:
I had an encounter designed which took place on an icy mountainside path between the party and a slightly modified Stone Giant. THere's a slight gap in the path which the party needed to cross to get to the Giant. Combat was joined: the Stone Giant tosses a boulder, the party responds with arrows, etc. I don't recall all the specifics, because it was a while ago, but it was in the 2nd or third round, the giant needed to make a balance check for some reason - I think I may have been trying to have him cross the gap, because the players wouldn't. I roll my dice openly on the table - the rolled a 1 for the giant, when had he rolled anything else, it would have been fine. Instead, he fell into the ravine and, after a failing a reflex save and suffering a particularly bad damage roll, ended up dead.
It was supposed to have been a challenging encounter. Instead, it was a moment of comedy which the players laughed about for some time. I suppose the players did the smart thing by not crossing the gap, but at the same time, the giant (me) got cocky, rolled poorly, and ended the encounter much earlier than it should have been. I reduced the CR of the Giant by 1 or 2 due to him being preternaturally unlucky. Nobody complained - they were all laughing too hard.
Actually I think you have made yourself clear, and I completely disagree with this action. I think you are taking your disappointment of the encounter out on the players. It was your mistake to cross the gap and the players good tactics to make the giant do so. You are definately punishing them for good tactics on their part and bad rolls/tactics on your part. That is not good dming in my book.
Another more recent example involved a cockatrice. The party had fought a group of bandits and forced them back into a cave - the bandits had a captive cockatrice, which they goaded out into the cave in an attempt to forestall the party. They party knew they had the cockatrice, they new what was happening, were prepared for it, and the thing lasted 1 round before being cut down by ranged attacks. It was not a planned encounter, and was kind of a stupid combat (although in keeping with the INT of the bandits, who's leader had been killed in the previous fight). I reduced the CR of the cockatrice by 1, because in the game it had provided about as much of a challenge as if the bandits had tossed a regular chicken at the party. Again, the combat lasted all of 5 real-world minutes, and nobody complained - there were other more interesting encounters to be had that day.
Again, you are punishing (Read: Reducing rewards) the party for knowing about the enemy and being prepared for it. I would have a major problem with this if a dm did it to me. I wonder did you actually tell the party in these cases they were getting less xp because the encounter didnt turn out the way you wanted it to?
I think that the operative principle here is that I don't see this as penalizing the party at all. I do a lot of DMing on the fly, so many of my encounters are not planned in detail. (Not that DMing is an exact science, anyway.) I suppose you could say that I'm retconning the CR because in hindsight I can take into account variables that I couldn't beforehand?
You dont see reducing the reward given to a player because things didnt work out like you thought they would to be punishing the players? Certainly I dont think dming is an exact science, but I actively dislike it when dms get adversarial over good tactics and preparedness on the part of the party. Unless you INCREASE the CR when the party has poor tactics, or the monsters roll well, this is a blatently unfair practice and is a sign of a kind of adversarialness that has no place (in my opinion) at any gaming table, let alone mine.
Agreed. This strikes me as "DM vrs Player" Dming if the pendulum doesn't swing both ways.
Does an encounters CR and respective XP reward increase if you have a lucky streak of nat 20s vrs the players? Does it increase if the party is attacked by something they were completely unprepared for, like finding out Magmus the Firelord keeps a pet white dragon chained in the pit beneath his throne?
Dicerolling puts a huge amount of weight into these examples, as you have already noted, but not truly acknowledged. My wife's barbarian recently managed to go through 3 entire sessions with an average roll of 7 (lots of rolls, lots of 2s and 3s). Conversely, the last session she had an average roll of 16 (very few rolls, several 19s).
Likewise, my "Dm Dice" seem almost improbably capable of rolling rapid successions of 20s and 1s, in various combinations. Double 20s and double 1s are common, and I use the Paizo Crit and Fumble decks, and allow exploding crits and fumbles, so combat can swing wildly because of this.
The CR system assumes an average of 10 on rolls however, because in the long run, thats what dice rolls eventually even out to. Twiddling with the system due to unusual rolls at the moment is contrary to the system as a whole.
|
|
Again, you are punishing (Read: Reducing rewards) the party for knowing about the enemy and being prepared for it. I would have a major problem with this if a dm did it to me. I wonder did you actually tell the party in these cases they were getting less xp because the encounter didnt turn out the way you wanted it to?
If I reduce the CR, it's not because I was personally disappointed - unless you say that I was disappointed that the encounter didn't provide the requisite challenge for the players? It's not an adversarial thing - I don't take the leftover XP awards and keep them for myself, muhahahaha. :P
CR can be very mushy, I've found. A low CR monster can sometimes harry the party beyond it's stated capabilities, and a high CR monster can sometimes fail to present much of a challenge at all. That's why I think the CR award should be adjusted (up or down). I can't always accurately judge the challenge before the encounter plays out, so sometimes I adjust it after the fact. I think my players understand this.
I believe that the XP awards need to reflect what happens in the game session more than I believe that the XP value in the bestiary is accurate in all times and places. The XP award for killing a giant in heroic combat should not be the same as the XP award for watching a giant trip over his own feet and fall off a cliff.
|
|
I had an encounter designed which took place on an icy mountainside path between the party and a slightly modified Stone Giant. THere's a slight gap in the path which the party needed to cross to get to the Giant. Combat was joined: the Stone Giant tosses a boulder, the party responds with arrows, etc. I don't recall all the specifics, because it was a while ago, but it was in the 2nd or third round, the giant needed to make a balance check for some reason - I think I may have been trying to have him cross the gap, because the players wouldn't.
What's that?
The PCs refused to jump over a crevasse, to go toe to toe with a larger, stronger creature with more reach than them, on a treacherous, icy ledge?
How very DARE they!
|
|
Another more recent example involved a cockatrice. The party had fought a group of bandits and forced them back into a cave - the bandits had a captive cockatrice, which they goaded out into the cave in an attempt to forestall the party. They party knew they had the cockatrice, they new what was happening, were prepared for it, and the thing lasted 1 round before being cut down by ranged attacks. It was not a planned encounter, and was kind of a stupid combat (although in keeping with the INT of the bandits, who's leader had been killed in the previous fight). I reduced the CR of the cockatrice by 1, because in the game it had provided about as much of a challenge as if the bandits had tossed a regular chicken at the party.
If the bandits knew people were aware of the cockatrice (eg they knew the PCs had broken in before, or they used the threat of it to extort the locals), I would have had them throw out an actual chicken, just so the PCs would freak out and blow their wad at it.
(Perception checks allowed, but penalised since the PCs are expecting a cockatrice).
I think that the operative principle here is that I don't see this as penalizing the party at all. I do a lot of DMing on the fly, so many of my encounters are not planned in detail. (Not that DMing is an exact science, anyway.) I suppose you could say that I'm retconning the CR because in hindsight I can take into account variables that I couldn't beforehand?
As far as I see it, that is a perfectly fine way to handle XP rewards, IF you also increase the XP rewards when the monsters get critical hits or the players have bad luck on their rolls.
If you don't do that, then you are basically penalizing the players because of your bad luck (or their good luck), which doesn't seem fair.
I think that the operative principle here is that I don't see this as penalizing the party at all. I do a lot of DMing on the fly, so many of my encounters are not planned in detail. (Not that DMing is an exact science, anyway.) I suppose you could say that I'm retconning the CR because in hindsight I can take into account variables that I couldn't beforehand?As far as I see it, that is a perfectly fine way to handle XP rewards, IF you also increase the XP rewards when the monsters get critical hits or the players have bad luck on their rolls.
If you don't do that, then you are basically penalizing the players because of your bad luck (or their good luck), which doesn't seem fair.
I think that this has been the general consensus. That other than terrain effecting CR's there is little to none of the "mushy-ness" the OP has mentioned and to not increase the rewards when an encounter becomes more challenging (IE the fluidity is all one-way)is not being equal or fair to the players.
|
|
I'll just reiterate that I don't see how I'm penalizing anyone. There is an infinite amount of XP that PCs can earn, so I'm not depriving them of anything. I still don't understand how exactly I'm taking anything away?
If the challenge didn't actually live up to the CR, why award a higher CR?
If the players came to me and said "Hey, we want to level this session. We need a total of 1600 XP to level, so you need to provide us with a CR 5 encounter. We want to fight a Basidirond." then I could see your point. That's not how the game is played, however.
My frustrations with the CR/XP system eventually grew to the point of throwing out the system altogether in recreational campaigns (I hate the term homebrew) and levels are awarded at key points in the campaign.
Conundrums such as yours have now ceased to exist :)
I'll just reiterate that I don't see how I'm penalizing anyone. There is an infinite amount of XP that PCs can earn, so I'm not depriving them of anything. I still don't understand how exactly I'm taking anything away?
If the challenge didn't actually live up to the CR, why award a higher CR?
If the players came to me and said "Hey, we want to level this session. We need a total of 1600 XP to level, so you need to provide us with a CR 5 encounter. We want to fight a Basidirond." then I could see your point. That's not how the game is played, however.
So in your campaign I can go fight a Kobold and intentionally screw up making it an epic battle draining every resource I have and level up 3 times because you'll modify it to CR 10?
No? I thought not.... so wait why is the fire giant CR 2 because he rolled badly on a witches slumber DC and got CDG'd?
What does luck have to do with XP?
I'll just reiterate that I don't see how I'm penalizing anyone. There is an infinite amount of XP that PCs can earn, so I'm not depriving them of anything. I still don't understand how exactly I'm taking anything away?
If the challenge didn't actually live up to the CR, why award a higher CR?
If the players came to me and said "Hey, we want to level this session. We need a total of 1600 XP to level, so you need to provide us with a CR 5 encounter. We want to fight a Basidirond." then I could see your point. That's not how the game is played, however.
If you didn't want people to disagree with you, why did you ask this?
In every example you've mentioned, the party made a good tactical decision and profited from it, but you decided you didn't think they had to work for it hard enough and you penalized them unfairly. It's pretty plain to see.
This is amazingly similar to GMs who won't award XP or award a reduced amount because an enemy rolled a 1 vs a spell which caused it to lose the fight, even though it would have succeeded 19/20 times normally; or punishing a party because the fighter dropped a baddie with his Vorpal sword. Snicker-snack the XP went crap!
---
So yeah, the general consensus seems to be that you made a mistake. That's fair. We all do. However, getting defensive about it doesn't really help you, your players, or anyone on this board.
But here's my answer for your actual question.
Answer
If terrain or other conditions provide a very noticeable advantage to the party or the enemies, you adjust the CR up or down by 1, awarding more or less XP. In the case of the frost giant, you would not adjust the encounter down, because the party was just as vulnerable to the terrain conditions. An argument could even be raised that if the Giant couldn't fail on anything but a 1 but the party could, that the encounter was actually tilted in the giant's favor; but the party made due with what they had and employed a strategy that worked out and gave them a tactical advantage. This is something I'd actively encourage this kind of activity in players.
In the case of the cockatrice, I understand that the players had killed the bandit's leadership and thus they were doing things kinda dumb, like throwing a statue-chicken at the party in a big room; but the party had foreknowledge of the chicken. Ok sounds like full CR to me. In fact, I blame you because you basically fed them the encounter, which is your fault. You put 1 monster vs the whole party in a room. Hmmm, yeah, that's pretty much asking the party to tear it to pieces 9/10 times unless the monster is waaaay above their CR; in which case, you're still doing something questionable.
Why not have had an Expert among the bandits who had trained the cockatrice with Handle Animal, and a couple of mook warriors (CR 1/3) with nets who just try to slow down the party. If you had 3 warriors + 1 expert + 1 cockatrice, that's only a CR 4 encounter, but it would have been far more interesting. So you made a boring encounter.
We've all been there man, we just gotta get better as GMs. It doesn't sound like there was an unfair advantage that the party had. Simply knowing a monster is there, or even that the monster turns people into statues doesn't mean a lot.
I had a bone of contention with my dm the other day and I'm ainterested in opinions. My lvl 11 party came upon a longhouse filled with 10 fire giants. 2 guards and 8 asleep. We drew the 2 gaurds out and dispatched them by the witch casting slumber one one, and straight killing the other. Coup de grace on the slumbering one. My ranger sneaked into the house, coup de graceing the other 8. I rolled well on all 8 opposed and UNMODIFIED stealth checks. Meaning their perception rolls were unmodified. The dm insisted on giving us a CR 2 for each fire giant. Was this fair? I could understand it if they were drunk and their perception was way low, but as I said they were unmodified.
You should have gotten full XP, possibly with a -1 CR for the total encounter (not -1 per creature or anything like that). You used your skills to overcome the situation, and it sounds like you used tactics to overcome your enemies (disabling the lookouts, sneaking in, killing them quickly). If your Stealth modifier had been lower, the giants would have woken up and beaten your hides.
As a GM, I'd say you got robbed.
I agree with Wolfsnap. I reduce the XP for combats that do not challenge the PCs. I also don't see it as penalizing anyone. I rarely employ encounters that are going to be artificially deflated against my party, but when I do, the CR comes down. Looking awesome as they hack their way through the combats is enough of a reward.
I don´t see any problem with what you did in the situations given...
If the terrain defeated the monster not the players, they didn´t have to do the work for the reward.
If an Archmage wins Initiative and blasts away, happening to destroy his own mooks, do they NEED Xp for those mooks?
If the Orc war-party happens to all walk into the quick-sand squares, do you need XP for that?
Falling of the edge of a cliff is a Skill-Check Trap.
Good tactics on the PCs part meant they didn´t have to risk themselves in combat, and you can give appropriate XP for that. But competently fleeing from a superior opponent is also good tactics, yet I don´t think they need to get ´defeat the encounter´ XP for that.
Cases like simply succeeding on every roll to gank sleeping Giants are different. (the fact they were already sleeping would itself be a situational penalty to CR in my book - sleeping isn´t in their tactics line)
I think you have a good handle on things, and probably have satisfying games, even if you want to be more satisfied.
I agree with Wolfsnap. I reduce the XP for combats that do not challenge the PCs. I also don't see it as penalizing anyone. I rarely employ encounters that are going to be artificially deflated against my party, but when I do, the CR comes down. Looking awesome as they hack their way through the combats is enough of a reward.
"Damnit, I got another critical hit. This sucks!"
"Didn't you get rid of that falchion George?""Yes, but this club still can critical 5% of the time. There goes our experience points."
"Damnit. Next encounter you fight the stupid kobolds with your teeth, while taking the -4 penalty to inflict lethal damage. Maybe then you at least won't confirm the damn thing."
"Yeah, good idea. I'd hate for the GM to think we had it too easy."
I don´t see any problem with what you did in the situations given...
If the terrain defeated the monster not the players, they didn´t have to do the work for the reward.
If an Archmage wins Initiative and blasts away, happening to destroy his own mooks, do they NEED Xp for those mooks?
If the Orc war-party happens to all walk into the quick-sand squares, do you need XP for that?
Falling of the edge of a cliff is a Skill-Check Trap.
Good tactics on the PCs part meant they didn´t have to risk themselves in combat, and you can give appropriate XP for that. But competently fleeing from a superior opponent is also good tactics, yet I don´t think they need to get ´defeat the encounter´ XP for that.Cases like simply succeeding on every roll to gank sleeping Giants are different. (the fact they were already sleeping would itself be a situational penalty to CR in my book - sleeping isn´t in their tactics line)
I think you have a good handle on things, and probably have satisfying games, even if you want to be more satisfied.
In the situation with the terrain, it would seem that the players were equally vulnerable to the threat of icy death as the giant, arguably more-so. The GM seemed to be expecting the players to dive through the icy path to close with the giant (effectively laying a trap) that threatened anyone who walked over it. Giant sees the players aren't going to charge over an icy path on a steep cliff to engage his mountain of muscle, so he decides to risk porting his mountain of muscle to the PCs and then biffed on his gamble.
Yeah, that's crap man.
EDIT: Also, yes. If the mooks of your archmage would have participated during the fight if he wasn't an amazingly stupid archmage and blown up his own teammates, yeah, they do get XP for that.
The orcs you mention falling into quicksand is entirely legitimate if the party could as well. It's called a terrain hazard. If the party lured them into the quicksand, props to them. If the party merely watched the orcs from a distance fall into the quicksand while on patrol, no XP but now the PCs know there's quicksand.
As noted previously, sleeping giants would be CR -1 for the whole encounter. Effectively the Ranger overcame the challenge through a different path, a path that was allowed as an option from the get-go. Giving them CR 2 XP was bogus.
So award Xp for defeating/bypassing the terrain trap.
If it´s not such a one-sided scenario COMPLETELY out of PC´s responsibility,
I might consider using a Trap CR converted to Level as if it were an additional member of the party.
Mooks aren´t team-mates. Mooks are mooks. Team-mates are for loser do-gooder PCs anyways. ;-)
It doesn´t sound any players of his have any problems with the game, and it sounds like in fact he´s a pretty good GM interested in keeping the game as exciting as possible. If you don´t like it, don´t play with him, but if it works for him and his players I don´t see any problem.
Inspired by another discussion, I thought this could use its own thread:
When do you feel it is appropriate to lower the CR/XP award after the fight is over?
I do this from time to time if I think the players have had way too easy a time with an opponent - that is, the opponent was defeated because (for story or plot reasons or extenuating circumstances or whatever) it was behaving stupidly or was in a tactically inferior situation.
If the party is responsible for that situation through smart play, that's another thing - but once in a while the opponent winds up defeating itself (usually because I as the DM make some truly boneheaded tactical mistake) and the party has a walkover of what is supposed to be a high CR challenge. In that case, I will often artificially lower the CR of the monster after the fight when awarding XP. I usually inform the players when I do this, and explain the reason why. So far, they haven't had a problem with it.
I have never lowered the CR after a fight, and I have never raised CR after a fight either. Sometimes the players get lucky, and sometimes they don't. I take it as bump on the chin as a DM if the fight was easier than expected, rather than make the players take the bump.
So award Xp for defeating/bypassing the terrain trap.
If it´s not such a one-sided scenario COMPLETELY out of PC´s responsibility,
I might consider using a Trap CR converted to Level as if it were an additional member of the party.Mooks aren´t team-mates. Mooks are mooks. Team-mates are for loser do-gooder PCs anyways. ;-)
It doesn´t sound any players of his have any problems with the game, and it sounds like in fact he´s a pretty good GM interested in keeping the game as exciting as possible. If you don´t like it, don´t play with him, but if it works for him and his players I don´t see any problem.
yup no problem, unless he comes on a forum and asks other players if/when he should do it.....
If a monster springs from ambush and yells "Rarragh!" and then three rounds later it's dead and none of the good guys got hurt, I would not consider that its actual CR for that fight was equal to the party's APL. If the CR was supposed to be lower than the party's APL, then no problem. If the CR was supposed to be equal to more more than the APL, then I would consider lowering it.
There's some disagreement about whether CR = APL encounters really mean anything in PF. They're labeled as "average" encounters in the PRD, which is a departure from the 3.X definition of "challenging". A PF "challenging" encounter is CR = APL + 1.
I would treat "average" encounters as somewhere between the 3.X easy encounter and 3.X challenging. 3.X easy encounters literally could be fought practically forever with very little resources being lost. 3.X challenging encounters should have used 20% of a party's resources on average. That's a massive difference in my book.
As a GM, I tend to make APL + 1 encounters a baseline encounter. In fact, if you up the point buy stats on the PCs enough and you're running 5 players, you might as well make the baseline APL + 2. I'm currently running into that problem in my game. But if you play 15 point buy and have 4 players, APL + 1 should be good enough.
I agree with Wolfsnap. I reduce the XP for combats that do not challenge the PCs. I also don't see it as penalizing anyone. I rarely employ encounters that are going to be artificially deflated against my party, but when I do, the CR comes down. Looking awesome as they hack their way through the combats is enough of a reward."Damnit, I got another critical hit. This sucks!"
"Didn't you get rid of that falchion George?"
"Yes, but this club still can critical 5% of the time. There goes our experience points."
"Damnit. Next encounter you fight the stupid kobolds with your teeth, while taking the -4 penalty to inflict lethal damage. Maybe then you at least won't confirm the damn thing."
"Yeah, good idea. I'd hate for the GM to think we had it too easy."
Stop making things up. I've never said that I change the CR based on rolls. I said that I alter it based on challenge. That doesn't mean rolls, it means stats. It means if my PCs get AC 40 at 5th level, they don't get as much XP from creatures that can't hit them except on a natural 20. Them's the breaks.
Diminish returns from low CR foes is something that was done in 3.x that I think was a good thing to jettison to a degree.
I do think that at a certain point in time the CR system breaks down completely in the cases of large numbers of low CR foes and in order to discourage PCs from grinding a low CR zone for XP ;) you need to limit the amount of XP that they can gain and eventually cut them off entirely.
The actual point in which low CR foes become irrelevant regardless of numbers varies per game but I generally find that if they need a 20 to hit the PC with a primary attack then you need to quit factoring them into the XP award. In a very real sense they have become scenery at that point and the PCs shouldn't get XP awards for destroying scenery.
As covered above terrain/environment advantages or other factors in play can and should modify Encounter Level. Non-flying herd creatures present no challenge to flyers, a narrow rope bridge that the PCs must cross presents advantage to the archers camped on the other side.
I also tend to modify the EL if the foe is not entering the fight in full fighting condition. If the NPCs are asleep, sick, cursed, have lower HPs, have less per day abilities, etc then the PCs are fighting a foe that isn't actually at their default CR. As such they should factor into EL at a lesser rate than is typical. I actually like using a complex mix of environment and NPC status to alter the effective challenge of an encounter.
In general though if detailed XP awards aren't working for you go to a simplified model or even the old DM fiat method where the DM simply dictates when the PCs level up. As long as the upgrade process happens often enough so people feel like that people feel like their actions have a positive effect then it really doesn't matter what XP system you use.
In general though if detailed XP awards aren't working for you go to a simplified model or even the old DM fiat method where the DM simply dictates when the PCs level up. As long as the upgrade process happens often enough so people feel like that people feel like their actions have a positive effect then it really doesn't matter what XP system you use.
I think I'll probably be moving to that model in the future. It's easier in PF when the XP isn't used for anything other than advancement.
Stop making things up. I've never said that I change the CR based on rolls. I said that I alter it based on challenge. That doesn't mean rolls, it means stats. It means if my PCs get AC 40 at 5th level, they don't get as much XP from creatures that can't hit them except on a natural 20. Them's the breaks.
So if I leave my AC at 10 I get more XP right? cause why would a player want an AC of 40 if its more punishment then profit?
I would build a high wisdom high CHA rogue with negative DEX and no armor. Just to guarantee I get at least full XP for encounters. This sounds stupid right? well your system rewards this
In general though if detailed XP awards aren't working for you go to a simplified model or even the old DM fiat method where the DM simply dictates when the PCs level up. As long as the upgrade process happens often enough so people feel like that people feel like their actions have a positive effect then it really doesn't matter what XP system you use.I think I'll probably be moving to that model in the future. It's easier in PF when the XP isn't used for anything other than advancement.
Totally, I loathed the XP tax on magic item crafting and certain spells. I understand they felt it provided a needed break on PC crafting but ugh the implementation left a lot to be desired.
In general I concur with you, with the trend towards everyone progressing at the same XP rate there is really no need to go with the highly granular detail XP chart. Going to a model where PCs level at appropriate times in plot is a big reduction in headaches for the DM.
Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake, as a dm you also dont particulary try to outwit the party, to ensure they lose, so it seems a fair deal.
You shouldnt reduce the exp based on bad rolls, sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get unlucky..
So many people seem to have issues with their DM, the fact that the guy asked here seems to me he is asking for fair advise in how to handle things fairly.
Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake...
Should the players then get a higher CR if they make a stupid mistake?
Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake...Should the players then get a higher CR if they make a stupid mistake?
No, it is not the DM being challenged.. you are turning it in a DM vs player argument where there is none. As a DM you try to make a suitable CR encounter, not to try to get the players killed, generally an entire different situation than what the players are in.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this per se, but it's turning the XP into a 'paced' system, or a 'fiat' system. Them's not the RAW. It might be better than the RAW, but things get messy when using CR numbers then treating them with high flexibility. That version seems way too post facto, and at a great risk for DM pettiness.
The way I see it, CR (if used) acts as a gamble. Yes, you might defeat a CR 10 monster in a single twist of fate. Alternatively, you might get killed dead by a CR 2 monster in a similar twist. You get the payoff because of the general risk involved, not the particular risk of any one particular battle.
|
Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake...Should the players then get a higher CR if they make a stupid mistake?
The players are not the ones adjudicating the XP for the encounter.
If the DM sets up an encounter that (by his judgment) should provide challenge X, he assessed the threat - he looks at the numbers and at the time it looks like it will hold up at challenge level X.
He runs the encounter and it's a cake-walk. Not because of bad rolls/good rolls, but possibly the way the encounter was set up, terrain, support, mechanics/stats, etc - the encounter then flops.
I have no problem with the DM then saying the value of the encounter (as it was set up, then played out) is now now reduced to X - 1 or 2 instead of X.
My own personal approach is always to err on the side of the players. If presented with a situation where a encounter does not even come close to being the challenge as originally planned out I:
A) Give them the listed XP, examine any mistakes or problems with the encounter relative to the CR/EL expectations. Chalk it up to a learning experience.
or
B) Give them the reduced XP, no one knows the difference but the GM, re-examine your encounter design philosophy.
I don't believe in getting revenge for player tactics, use of spells, good/bad rolls, etc. If an encounter is planned and plays out as being mechanically underpowered I have no issues with the DM adjusting the experience (stress this word) points gained from the encounter.
In most all cases I go with A, but on occasion I have gone the route of B. In any case I usually discuss the encounter, problems with the set up or mistakes in planning and my players are very receptive. They do not want xp that they didn't earn 100%.
You get the payoff because of the general risk involved, not the particular risk of any one particular battle.
This.
If I kill a dragon in its sleep then I have obviously learned something way beyond anything an epic battle with a kobold will teach me.
Stop making things up. I've never said that I change the CR based on rolls. I said that I alter it based on challenge. That doesn't mean rolls, it means stats. It means if my PCs get AC 40 at 5th level, they don't get as much XP from creatures that can't hit them except on a natural 20. Them's the breaks.So if I leave my AC at 10 I get more XP right? cause why would a player want an AC of 40 if its more punishment then profit?
I would build a high wisdom high CHA rogue with negative DEX and no armor. Just to guarantee I get at least full XP for encounters. This sounds stupid right? well your system rewards this
First off, AC 40 isn't 'more punishment than profit'. There is a level at which AC 40 is expected, and there is a level (lower) at which it can be tricked out through various cheese. My example said level five, good of you to ignore that.
Look at the CR tables. A high AC should require a creature of +1 CR to roll a 13-14 or so to hit. If creatures that have +9 CR can't hit you except on a natural 20, that's too high. If you always save against DCs of +9 CR except on a natural 1, you have your saves too high. I don't usually have to deal with any of that, because my players optimize with the understanding that they are going to face a challenge regardless of how they decide to prepare.
However, keep in mind, my players don't determine their encounters. I do. I keep their AC, saves and all their other resources in mind when I decide to throw something at them.
Second off, your entire premise of giving you more XP for leaving your AC at 10 is stupid and facetious. Why would I do that? Because it makes sense in your bizarro world? My 'system' doesn't reward anything of the sort.
First off, AC 40 isn't 'more punishment than profit'. There is a level at which AC 40 is expected, and there is a level (lower) at which it can be tricked out through various cheese.
What is cheese about a character trying to protect themselves?
No, it is not the DM being challenged.. you are turning it in a DM vs player argument where there is none. As a DM you try to make a suitable CR encounter, not to try to get the players killed, generally an entire different situation than what the players are in.Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake...Should the players then get a higher CR if they make a stupid mistake?
I am not. I am saying mistakes on either side are bound to happen, and neither should affect the CR. I am a player, and a DM, and if I am playing and the DM forgets to cast defensively and he admits it, giving me an AoO which in turn leads to a crit I should not get less XP. If the players get a string of nat 20's and 1-round a boss then they should still get full XP.
Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake...Should the players then get a higher CR if they make a stupid mistake?The players are not the ones adjudicating the XP for the encounter.
This has no bearing on the question I asked, but since you want to argument semantics--> Should the DM award more XP if the players make a stupid mistake?
What is cheese about a character trying to protect themselves?
First off, AC 40 isn't 'more punishment than profit'. There is a level at which AC 40 is expected, and there is a level (lower) at which it can be tricked out through various cheese.
That is not what he said. He said 40 is accepted at a certain level, and there are cheese tactics which allow you to get it before those levels. Whether his cheese tactics and your cheese tactics are the same is another debate altogether.
That is not what he said. He said 40 is accepted at a certain level, and there are cheese tactics which allow you to get it before those levels. Whether his cheese tactics and your cheese tactics are the same is another debate altogether.What is cheese about a character trying to protect themselves?
First off, AC 40 isn't 'more punishment than profit'. There is a level at which AC 40 is expected, and there is a level (lower) at which it can be tricked out through various cheese.
Thanks, Wraith. I know we're on opposite sides of the fence on this one, I appreciate the clarification all the more for it.
Also, as far as poor rolls or awesome rolls altering XP, I wouldn't do that unless the roll actually kept the encounter from ever happening. If the three assassins fall off the cliff through failed Acrobatics checks during the surprise round, I'm likely to rule that combat didn't happen. Or bring in three "more" assassins right behind and let the first three serve as a reminder of what terrain can do.
First off, AC 40 isn't 'more punishment than profit'. There is a level at which AC 40 is expected, and there is a level (lower) at which it can be tricked out through various cheese. My example said level five, good of you to ignore that.Look at the CR tables. A high AC should require a creature of +1 CR to roll a 13-14 or so to hit. If creatures that have +9 CR can't hit you except on a natural 20, that's too high. If you always save against DCs of +9 CR except on a natural 1, you have your saves too high. I don't usually have to deal with any of that, because my players optimize with the understanding that they are going to face a challenge regardless of how they decide to prepare.
However, keep in mind, my players don't determine their encounters. I do. I keep their AC, saves and all their other resources in mind when I decide to throw something at them.
Second off, your entire premise of giving you more XP for leaving your AC at 10 is stupid and facetious. Why would I do that? Because it makes sense in your bizarro world? My 'system' doesn't reward anything of the sort.
First off AC 40 at level five would give me very little XP in your games while an AC of 10 will guarantee I'll get full XP regardless of what you throw at me, So I stand by that AC 40 is more punishment then the protection it provides.
Not to mention if one member of your party has AC 500 (just examples) and another has saves in the upper 30's both of them qualify to ruin the XP for the party in your system.
Playing smart (ya know the whole reason someone would blow through an encounter) means getting less XP with you, which discourages smart play.
|
|
This has no bearing on the question I asked, but since you want to argument semantics--> Should the DM award more XP if the players make a stupid mistake?Nothing wrong decreasing the CR if you make a stupid mistake...Should the players then get a higher CR if they make a stupid mistake?The players are not the ones adjudicating the XP for the encounter.
And to my originally implied answer: No
It is 100% relevant to the argument, you are the only one here playing games with semantics.
Players can make: bad decisions, poor planning/prep, not use power appropriately (or at all), and so on. Their mistakes are limited to the scope of their character sheets and decisions framed by the range abilities on that sheet.
DMs can do all the above and: Use a poorly designed creature (under powered/overpowered) for CR - 3rd party or Core, create a creature which is over/under power of CR, setup an encounter and realize after that the setup impacted/reduced the level of challenge of the encounter - something which was not seen till after the encounter was played out, and so on.
In other words the DM is dealing with more variables, and far more metagame issues than the players. These are things that go beyond the power of a PC and range of abilities and decisions they make in-game.
The DM has far more tasks and duties to manage than the players - if he makes a mistake in planning or calculating the threat level of an encounter and then retcons the XP award after that fact I don't think he should be called a BAD DM. This is a petty entitlement mentality - just a bad as the DM vs. Player mindset so many people hate.
I'm not talking about taking away XP for bad/good rolls or even bad decisions and use of powers by the DM. If on the other hand you (as the DM, say a new DM) run an encounter with a Troll and do not run its regeneration ability the players (if this mistake is caught by the DM) may not get the full xp for the fight. DMs choice.
This isn't supposed to be a game of GOTCHA and now you owe me.
Again, I also stated to err on the side of the players, but sometimes as a DM you can run an encounter (say out of AP) and find the encounters are not up to snuff for their suggested CR. In the latter case reducing the xp is 100% legit - the DM should then also review his source material or planning if this situation keeps occuring.