Easy XP?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I think people are just hostile that the monk used his useless abilities like Acrobatics and high running speed to get to an enemy while it was vulnerable. Monks are suppose to get owned.

As far as your comment about how rivers work, that simply isn't true. Are you a geologist?

Rivers cut through the path of least resistance, and if there are distinctly different material types like what you would need for the under dark, the river could easily be carved through more erodible material while the walls remain high, like in a canyon.

I love how every single thing that isn't spelled out completely is obvious where the logical contradiction lies.


Something that can't swim being near water because that's where it's job is?! That's stupid. Every person that gets near water or travels on a boat has always been a good swimmer. Human beings who fight on mountains never get shoved off because they wouldn't be there unless they could fly. The drider obviously should have suspected that he could be charged and struck over 80' of difficult terrain in one round. Driders are masters of information when it comes to the esoteric abilities of monistary guards.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You might want to take a break cw. You're starting to rant and rave.


cranewings wrote:

I think people are just hostile that the monk used his useless abilities like Acrobatics and high running speed to get to an enemy while it was vulnerable. Monks are suppose to get owned.

As far as your comment about how rivers work, that simply isn't true. Are you a geologist?

Rivers cut through the path of least resistance, and if there are distinctly different material types like what you would need for the under dark, the river could easily be carved through more erodible material while the walls remain high, like in a canyon.

I love how every single thing that isn't spelled out completely is obvious where the logical contradiction lies.

The only person exhibiting any hostility in the thread is you. And no one is "out to get" monks at all. Everyone here would give you the same answer if a dwarf barbarian, druid wildshaped into an elephant, or a wizard w/ telekinesis pushed the drider into the insta-death scenario.

Might as well just have said mage hand, since you didn't bother to consider whether the bull rush should have worked or not.


cranewings wrote:
Something that can't swim being near water because that's where it's job is?! That's stupid. Every person that gets near water or travels on a boat has always been a good swimmer. Human beings who fight on mountains never get shoved off because they wouldn't be there unless they could fly. The drider obviously should have suspected that he could be charged and struck over 80' of difficult terrain in one round. Driders are masters of information when it comes to the esoteric abilities of monistary guards.

You understand it has nothing to do with monks or the drider's erstwhile knowledge, yes?


Chobemaster wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Something that can't swim being near water because that's where it's job is?! That's stupid. Every person that gets near water or travels on a boat has always been a good swimmer. Human beings who fight on mountains never get shoved off because they wouldn't be there unless they could fly. The drider obviously should have suspected that he could be charged and struck over 80' of difficult terrain in one round. Driders are masters of information when it comes to the esoteric abilities of monistary guards.
You understand it has nothing to do with monks or the drider's erstwhile knowledge, yes?

It has to do with the idea that the drider shouldn't be near the water, either because things that can't swim are never near water or because it should have known the monk could Bullrush strike from that far. Of course, the final reason it shouldn't have been near the water is that I, as a gm, shouldn't put it there because the fight might end early.

All of that stinks.


GM made a bad call... reduce the XP and move on. Seems obvious to me.

One thing I tried for a while that seemed to work was allocating XP based on the difficulty of the fight. If they pull off a trick and one shot something before the party can even get their swords out, then nobody learned anything by fighting it, so little XP was earned. If what should have been a simple fight gets complicated by bad luck or tactics and turns into an epic brawl then bonus XP is earned because that is a fight they would learn a lot from.


Aranna wrote:

GM made a bad call... reduce the XP and move on. Seems obvious to me.

One thing I tried for a while that seemed to work was allocating XP based on the difficulty of the fight. If they pull off a trick and one shot something before the party can even get their swords out, then nobody learned anything by fighting it, so little XP was earned. If what should have been a simple fight gets complicated by bad luck or tactics and turns into an epic brawl then bonus XP is earned because that is a fight they would learn a lot from.

Different strokes I guess. I would be really aggravated as a player if I rolled a bunch of crits during the surprise round and got docked XP for it.

A sixth level wizard casts hold person on a 10th level fighter during the surprise round, then slits his throat. What's the CR of the encounter?


Your player had a moment to shine, the fight was won. Sounds good to me. Actually, it sounds like a "remember when I pushed that drider into the river?"-story to be told in the future. I see no need to reduce the XP. Maybe the fight was easier than you anticipated, but stuff like that happens. Some fights are easier, others more difficult. You cannot account for all the myriad possibilities of a fight.

And I guess it is better to not listen to the people who make assumptions about your game based on nothing really. Sailors (and driders) can be unable to swim (look up Nelson's Navy for example), and there can be cliffs at rivers (look up many non-engineered rivers for example).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HalifaxDM wrote:
I would award full XP. I enjoy it when my players make use of their surroundings and not just their attack bonuses and foes to overcome enemies and obstacles.

Aye, when the players make clever use of their surroundings and do things that are unexpected and trip you up, and you genuinely believe that they outsmarted you fair and square and were civil about it, I'd pull a "i see what you did there...clever girl..." and then award them full XP, plus a little extra for creative uses of their class abilities. After all, the game's no fun unless you let your imagination soar.


cranewings wrote:

In my game last night, the monk used his tiger claw technique to bull rush a dryder (spider centaur) into a river. I ruled that it rolled belly up in the water and floated down stream, because I couldn't figure out how it could swim.

Before I hear the chorus of people saying it wasn't being tactical enough, it was guarding something by the river, and didn't know the monk could burn ki to run good or bypass difficult terrain by running on top the mushrooms.

Anyway, he basically one-shotted a CR 7, so I awarded XP for that part of the encounter.

Should I have, or did the terrain effectively reduce the CR?

No you shouldn't for 2 reasons at least.

1.Sometimes these things happen. The only way I would take XP away from a party for a fight that was to be too easy due to high dice rolls would be if I were willing to give them extra XP due to low dice rolls. Feel free to replace "dice rolls" with any other circumstantial event.

2.You allowed a houserule to influence the game. If tigers and people can swim then I don't see why a drider can not move its legs so it can swim. Driders are also big and the current would have to be strong to sweep one away, and the water would have to be deep to be over its head.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
cranewings wrote:

In my game last night, the monk used his tiger claw technique to bull rush a dryder (spider centaur) into a river. I ruled that it rolled belly up in the water and floated down stream, because I couldn't figure out how it could swim.

Before I hear the chorus of people saying it wasn't being tactical enough, it was guarding something by the river, and didn't know the monk could burn ki to run good or bypass difficult terrain by running on top the mushrooms.

Anyway, he basically one-shotted a CR 7, so I awarded XP for that part of the encounter.

Should I have, or did the terrain effectively reduce the CR?

No you shouldn't for 2 reasons at least.

1.Sometimes these things happen. The only way I would take XP away from a party for a fight that was to be too easy due to high dice rolls would be if I were willing to give them extra XP due to low dice rolls. Feel free to replace "dice rolls" with any other circumstantial event.

2.You allowed a houserule to influence the game. If tigers and people can swim then I don't see why a drider can not move its legs so it can swim. Driders are also big and the current would have to be strong to sweep one away, and the water would have to be deep to be over its head.

Its bonus to swim is only a +2 assuming normal drider. A river deep enough for a large creature would be violent waters (rivers that deep tend to have fairly strong currents), so DC 20. But, then again, if it was auto-houseruled, maybe you do have a point...not enough to reduce XP, but...meh


cranewings wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Something that can't swim being near water because that's where it's job is?! That's stupid. Every person that gets near water or travels on a boat has always been a good swimmer. Human beings who fight on mountains never get shoved off because they wouldn't be there unless they could fly. The drider obviously should have suspected that he could be charged and struck over 80' of difficult terrain in one round. Driders are masters of information when it comes to the esoteric abilities of monistary guards.
You understand it has nothing to do with monks or the drider's erstwhile knowledge, yes?

It has to do with the idea that the drider shouldn't be near the water, either because things that can't swim are never near water or because it should have known the monk could Bullrush strike from that far. Of course, the final reason it shouldn't have been near the water is that I, as a gm, shouldn't put it there because the fight might end early.

All of that stinks.

IOW, no, you don't understand it, then. The issue is that the drider was nerfed. A REAL drider (i.e. CR7) isn't insta-drown and should have gotten resistance to the bull-rush w/ his extra legs.

If a DM decided to use a custom monster that looks like a drider, but only had half as many HD, or worse, the same HD, but used d1's (sic) to "roll" the HP, would you still call that a CR7 monster?


The Drunken Dragon wrote:


Its bonus to swim is only a +2 assuming normal drider. A river deep enough for a large creature would be violent waters (rivers that deep tend to have fairly strong currents), so DC 20. But, then again, if it was auto-houseruled, maybe you do have a point...not enough to reduce XP, but...meh

You can have slow-flowing, deep rivers, and strong current isn't the same as "violent waters" anyway. Speed of the current is a property of the slope of the river's course.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Generally, I would say that the terrain wasn't enough to drop the CR by one - or wouldn't normally have been. Having a river at its back shouldn't really give a drider cause for concern.

However, I think failure to give the monster an even break did make the encounter significantly easier. Maybe the drider would have blown it swim checks trying to get out of the river and the point would have been moot. But because you didn't even give it that chance, I think you gimped the encounter. Had that been part of the plan, then I think a reduced XP award would be appropriate. Since this seems to be more because of a brain fart in handling the drider than anything else, I wouldn't reduce the award.


I'd really love to DM for the sort of player people keep describing who hear about or see on the map even a vaguely hazardous terrain feature and then don't spend all their resources trying to relocate an enemy into it. That's not cleverness; that's the natural instinct of every player I've ever met. Don't get me wrong - I do think players should sometimes be rewarded for clever solutions (although in most cases circumventing a combat encounter without spending meaningful resources is itself a reward), but "move enemy to lava hole" isn't a special example of cleverness, it's what every player's instinct is from the first time they scratch a pencil across a character sheet. One of the marks of a tactically-minded player is the ability to recognize that hey, maybe it's easier if we just kill this goblin with our weapons instead of trying to shove him 30 feet into that spiky pit.


Bill Dunn wrote:

Generally, I would say that the terrain wasn't enough to drop the CR by one - or wouldn't normally have been. Having a river at its back shouldn't really give a drider cause for concern.

However, I think failure to give the monster an even break did make the encounter significantly easier. Maybe the drider would have blown it swim checks trying to get out of the river and the point would have been moot. But because you didn't even give it that chance, I think you gimped the encounter. Had that been part of the plan, then I think a reduced XP award would be appropriate. Since this seems to be more because of a brain fart in handling the drider than anything else, I wouldn't reduce the award.

Bolding Mine.

This. He didn't intentionally nerf the drider. Just one hilarious set of circumstance. Full XP.

And Guys, it was a river, I don't know where several of you are getting "Lava Hole" from.


"Lava hole" was not a literal statement. It was a representation of any terrain or lack of terrain(off the side of a cliff) that would have the players an advantage.

Scarab Sages

Just give normal EXP and move on. It was an enjoyable moment, and the creature was bested. Sure, the players kinda pulled a fast one on you, but that's okay. No need to punish them for that.


cranewings wrote:
As far as your comment about how rivers work, that simply isn't true. Are you a geologist?

No, but I've personally visited many rivers. Including a canyon not 2 hours from my home, which I've been to many times now.

If the water level is near the shoreline, chances are very high that taking a step into it won't result in the water being deep enough for a large creature (such as a horse or cow) to not touch the bottom.
Quote:
Rivers cut through the path of least resistance, and if there are distinctly different material types like what you would need for the under dark, the river could easily be carved through more erodible material while the walls remain high, like in a canyon.

So it was a cliff with a river at the bottom? That's very different, and I'm surprised you didn't make a climb check on behalf of the Drider.

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Easy XP? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.