What to do when you awarded too little XP?

[Jufo]

So I led my level 6 party into a sidequest, where they went into a mysterious house - an elaborate illusion, made by a mad illusionist, who lure people in to kill them and take their stuff.

After 3 sessions trapped in this murderhouse, the party made their way to the mad wizard and slew him (in one blow even - lucky crit). I gave a ballpark of the xp I would guess they should have, and awarded them 3000 each.

When I ended up calculating it later, that turned out too low.. about half of what it probably should be actually. So, this is obviously a mistake on my part, but how would you go about fixing this mistake? Just say outright that you messed up at the next session? or could it be worked into the narrative?

The encounters the met in the house were:
2 Invisible Stalkers
3 Shadows (who turned out to be illusions)
4 Owlbears (3 of which were illusions)
3 mimic (that were real)
1 mad and well-equipped illusionist, who was behind it all

I may as well add a secondary question: how to XP count illusions? It was quite a while into the owlbear fight, befpre they realized they were illusions and the owlbears, real and not managed to do some damage, so I have counted them as good as real, but I am interested in hearing some other ways to do it for inspiration for future sessions.

Totally those monsters they fought (if all were real) would come to about 6000 for each and probably a bonus for completing the sidequest.

So how to go about such a GM mistake?

Thanks in advance :)

[Suthainn]

If the Illusions were all created by the boss using his spells then they would be worth 0 exp, they count as part of his arsenal of abilities and are included in his exp value.

Overall, I'd ask, do you think they need more exp? If their level is mostly irrelevant to you and they felt it was a low exp reward then just tell them you made a math error and give them the actual value. If you'd rather they remain at lower level for now and they all had fun and felt appropriately rewarded then I don't see there's any problem that needs fixing.

[NewXToa]

If you think they need the extra XP but don't want to admit you made a mistake, you could always just add it into the experience they get for the next session you guys do.

[DeathMvp]

If you feel bad about giving to little xp you can just give them it the next time and I am sure they will not be mad about it. If you want to fix it and do not let them know pad the xp on the next few times you give xp untill you made it up.

[dragonhunterq]

Just fix it at the beginning of the next session (or earlier by email if it might result in levelling up, and you prefer to deal with that away from the table). It is a mechanical error, it shouldn't have a narrative impact.
Mistakes like these happen, it shouldn't be a big deal, so don't make it one.

Illusions, assuming they are a part of the encounter and not from spells/class abilities, could be calculated a number of ways, such as:

• as a trap with a CR equal to the spell level of the illusion used.
  
• as an ad hoc award for favourable circumstances for the NPCs.
  
• eyeball how much more challenging it was and add an award accordingly.

etc.

[Wheldrake]

If you do decide to give them more xp, it seems unlikely the players would object. <g>

This said, the more you give them now, the more they will expect to get in future adventures. Giving them more now may lead to them feeling shortchanged later on.

In other words, it's all very, very subjective. Many folks here simply don't use xp at all, especially if they are running an adventure path with set level benchmarks.

My players all love getting xp, they're hooked on it like a drug, from years of playing earlier editions. They'd be miffed if there weren't any xp to be had, and would feel the xp-less leveling were cheapened somehow.

So my advice to you as the DM is go with what feels right. But don't let slip the floodgates, do it very gradually.

[Snowlilly]

If you made a mistake, admit it and move on.

We all make mistakes.

[Jufo]

I am not afraid of admitting my mistake, but more afraid of coming about seeming.. cheesy?

For context, The druid, the primary spellcaster of the group, died fighting the illusionist. She got rushed to and raised by a local cleric, whose town they saved, and she returned to life, but with two negative levels - which removed her ability to cast 3rd level spells. Now we found out at the last session that they were less than a 1000 xp from level 7, where she would get them back. If I just started next session saying telling them they got the extra XP, they might find it, not as a genuine math error, but as a way of cheesing the party stronger. They could get the xp for the level this next session, but they seemed pretty adamant about it being downtime to recuperate from three battle-heavy sessions.

[Scrapper]

Try a Master Summoner for a villain, an army of summons with 0 xp award...
It all depends on how the boss is played, a poorly played CR 7 gives same xp as a well played CR 7. How ever, situational xp for traps, environmental hazards, field advantage do affect CR's of encounters, as does gear, poorly geared could be a -1CR mod while exceptional gear would add +1CR. Even though they were illusions with only one real Owlbear, it's CR could be +1 as it had a field advantage of 3 look a likes and party couldn't focus on it alone.

[Wheldrake]

Jufo wrote:

... and she returned to life, but with two negative levels - which removed her ability to cast 3rd level spells. Now we found out at the last session that they were less than a 1000 xp from level 7, where she would get them back.

Wait... there's something I'm not following here. Do you lads have a houserule where negative levels disappear when you advance to a new character level?

AFAIK, the main method of removing negative levels is by using a restoration spell, which involves spending 1000gp worth of diamond dust and waiting a week for the second dose.

This said, it seems entirely plausible to tell everyone, "hey! last session I made a mistake adding up the xp, and you all should've got 1000xp more." I mean, what, are they going to complain because you're too generous? <g>

[Anguish]

Jufo wrote:

I am not afraid of admitting my mistake, but more afraid of coming about seeming.. cheesy?

Communication is king.

"Last session I gave you a ballpark number. Turns out I was off. You each are owed another 3,000 XP based on what you did last session".

Big hint: don't bring up the imaginary cheese. If you say "hey, I'm totally not giving you more XP because I want you stronger because I have plans or something..." then you're going to raise suspicion. Just bloody hand out the XP and move on.

Oh, and um, do it now. Otherwise they won't have time to level their character sheets before the next session.

[Jufo]

Wheldrake wrote:

Jufo wrote:

... and she returned to life, but with two negative levels - which removed her ability to cast 3rd level spells. Now we found out at the last session that they were less than a 1000 xp from level 7, where she would get them back.

Wait... there's something I'm not following here. Do you lads have a houserule where negative levels disappear when you advance to a new character level?

No, I meant like, as they are level 6 now, she is functionally 4, and when improved to 7, she will be functionally 5, which is where she gains 3rd level spells. She still has to get those two negative levels restored, to be at her actual level, where she incidentally will also get her 4th level spells - which she doesn't have yet.

[dragonhunterq]

negative levels wrote:

Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels

While the druid has a caster level of 4, they can still cast 3rd level spells. If they level to 7th, they can cast 4th level spells, but at caster level 5.

[NenkotaMoon]

In my problem, too much XP. Going to heavily tone it back.

[Anguish]

dragonhunterq wrote:

negative levels wrote:

Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels

While the druid has a caster level of 4, they can still cast 3rd level spells. If they level to 7th, they can cast 4th level spells, but at caster level 5.

Just to expand on this for Jufo...

The word "level" is used a lot of different ways. When someone's "caster level" is reduced, it doesn't mean "their level as a caster".

So, for instance a "6th-level wizard" can cast fireball because they got access to "3rd-level spells" when they hit 5th-level. When they first learned fireball, they'd cast it and do 5d6 damage. When they leveled up to 6th, their fireball spells started doing 6d6 damage, because that spell says 1d6 per "caster level".

If our 6th-level wizard takes two negative levels, their "caster level" is reduced to 4. So their fireballs do 4d6 damage.

Negative levels were designed to be simple to run; you just take -1 to a bunch of stuff (including your caster level) for each one. You don't actually count as having fewer real levels. A fighter doesn't lose their feats, a barbarian doesn't lose his rage powers, and casters don't lose spell-levels they gained access too. Everyone's just a little weaker at whatever it is they're capable of.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Jufo wrote:

So I led my level 6 party into a sidequest, where they went into a mysterious house - an elaborate illusion, made by a mad illusionist, who lure people in to kill them and take their stuff.

After 3 sessions trapped in this murderhouse, the party made their way to the mad wizard and slew him (in one blow even - lucky crit). I gave a ballpark of the xp I would guess they should have, and awarded them 3000 each.

When I ended up calculating it later, that turned out too low.. about half of what it probably should be actually. So, this is obviously a mistake on my part, but how would you go about fixing this mistake? Just say outright that you messed up at the next session? or could it be worked into the narrative?

The encounters the met in the house were:
2 Invisible Stalkers
3 Shadows (who turned out to be illusions)
4 Owlbears (3 of which were illusions)
3 mimic (that were real)
1 mad and well-equipped illusionist, who was behind it all

I may as well add a secondary question: how to XP count illusions? It was quite a while into the owlbear fight, befpre they realized they were illusions and the owlbears, real and not managed to do some damage, so I have counted them as good as real, but I am interested in hearing some other ways to do it for inspiration for future sessions.

Totally those monsters they fought (if all were real) would come to about 6000 for each and probably a bonus for completing the sidequest.

So how to go about such a GM mistake?

Thanks in advance :)

How was the loot? Was the loot above average for your encounters, or was it only average? You mentioned a well equipped illusionist, plus he'd been stealing, so there was probably some good loot here.

If the loot was above average, but the xp was light, I think that would be fine to ignore, unless you need the party to have xp by the next encounter.

If the loot was only average, I'd admit the mistake and adjust the xp.

[Kaladin_Stormblessed]

I'd look at CR values of traps to compare the illusions to. It shouldn't be as much exp as if they were real, because they're still less of a threat even if a significant one - if they were real, they still would have distracted the party from the owlbears, and also have had a chance to do significant damage themselves.

Also yeah, just say you got the amount of exp wrong and correct it. I really doubt they'd look too much into it as anything more significant. If they get suspicious about you making it up to buff them, then that's weird and you're gonna wanna figure out what's got them being so paranoid toward you.

[Tyinyk]

If you really want to avoid the cheese suspicion, you could just list off the actual XP values of the stuff they dealt with. The math'll be your friend.

[Selvaxri]

They fight an obnoxious golden ooze with an stupid high AC, and really low HP- and a permanent expeditious retreat that runs away after X rounds.

if they manage to defeat that enemy- yay! Exp! if not, too bad for them.

[Zigniber]

Anguish wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

negative levels wrote:

Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels

While the druid has a caster level of 4, they can still cast 3rd level spells. If they level to 7th, they can cast 4th level spells, but at caster level 5.

Just to expand on this for Jufo...

The word "level" is used a lot of different ways. When someone's "caster level" is reduced, it doesn't mean "their level as a caster".

So, for instance a "6th-level wizard" can cast fireball because they got access to "3rd-level spells" when they hit 5th-level. When they first learned fireball, they'd cast it and do 5d6 damage. When they leveled up to 6th, their fireball spells started doing 6d6 damage, because that spell says 1d6 per "caster level".

If our 6th-level wizard takes two negative levels, their "caster level" is reduced to 4. So their fireballs do 4d6 damage.

Negative levels were designed to be simple to run; you just take -1 to a bunch of stuff (including your caster level) for each one. You don't actually count as having fewer real levels. A fighter doesn't lose their feats, a barbarian doesn't lose his rage powers, and casters don't lose spell-levels they gained access too. Everyone's just a little weaker at whatever it is they're capable of.

Actually, I believe that this is something that Jufo and his/her group was running correctly. In your example, while the 6th level wizard doesn't lose their prepared Fireball due to the two gained negative levels, spells have a minimum caster level to cast equal to the class level that you first got that spell level at... so a Fireball would have a minimum caster level of 5 for a Wizard, meaning the Wizard couldn't actually cast Fireball (or any other third-level spell) even though the spell is still prepared. Likewise, the Druid in Jufo's group wouldn't be able to cast third level spells while level 6 with two negative levels, but could if she hits level 7, as she'd then have a (modified) caster level of 5 to cast third level spells with.

[Anguish]

Zigniber wrote:

Actually, I believe that this is something that Jufo and his/her group was running correctly. In your example, while the 6th level wizard doesn't lose their prepared Fireball due to the two gained negative levels, spells have a minimum caster level to cast equal to the class level that you first got that spell level at... so a Fireball would have a minimum caster level of 5 for a Wizard, meaning the Wizard couldn't actually cast Fireball (or any other third-level spell) even though the spell is still prepared. Likewise, the Druid in Jufo's group wouldn't be able to cast third level spells while level 6 with two negative levels, but could if she hits level 7, as she'd then have a (modified) caster level of 5 to cast third level spells with.

I don't think that's correct. Spells don't have a minimum caster level. Sure, scrolls and potions and other consumables do, in terms of the default assumption is that they are crafted at the CL at which the crafter gets the spell slot. So yes, a scroll of fireball is assumed to be CL5th, but there's nothing inherent in fireball that demands CL5. The closest thing is in the wizard class, which doesn't grant the slot until 5th level. But negative levels don't change slot access.

If the intention of negative levels was to deprive casters of the ability to cast spells based on spell levels, they'd do that. But they don't. Explicitly.

Actually, that's why scrolls are priced differently based on what class creates them. A sorcerer making fireball scrolls starts at CL6 while a wizard starts at CL5. It's the caster that matters, not the spell. A sorcerer gains access to fireball at 6th, so that's assumed to be the minimum... for him. With a negative level involved, that assumption is false; a 6th-level sorcerer with 1 negative level functions at CL5, and would use Scribe Scroll to produce a CL5 scroll of fireball, and it would be priced the same as a wizard.

[PK the Dragon]

Admit it and move on. It'll actually be a feel good moment for the players, most likely. "Oh cool we got more EXP than normal!" Don't be somber, be excited about it. "Guess what, I actually guessed way too low amount of XP last session, you actually earned double!". You are happy to give them extra XP, they're happy to receive it, everyone walks away happy and not-paranoid.

[Zigniber]

d20pfsrd.com/magic wrote:

A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Granted, I haven't been able to find anything that specifically states what the minimum caster level for a spell being cast normally, but I have a hard time imagining it's not the same as it is for scroll, potions, and the like.

Getting back on topic, though, yeah, I'd say just admit to the mistake and give them the missing exp. You're human. People make mistakes; it happens. Just fix it and move on.

[SheepishEidolon]

These negative levels after Raise Dead etc. are a legacy rule. They make some sense to avoid creatures coming back in the middle of combat, with full offense potential - 1 HP doesn't restrict that.

But outside of combat they are just an annoyance, yet another penalty to get rid off. One penalty (costs for Raise Dead etc.) is enough in my opinion. Walking around with a remaining negative level for a full ingame week has nothing to do with fun and won't really encourage the player to improve their play. Because human mind responds to immediate reward and penalty, not to delayed versions of them...

So I'd rather make them temporary negative levels or skip them altogether.

[Gulthor]

I just want to re-address that if the illusions were cast by the wizard, then they're worth 0 xp (same as if a conjurer had been summoning monsters at them.)

Fortunately, DHQ already explained the negative level/caster misinterpretation.