You're the one playing the monster. You're the one that would make it an XP farm if you get your monsters to run away and return like you suggest. If your party is effective enough to get a monster to fear for its life and flee, they deserve the spoils of the battle. Denying them XP for doing well is a poor move.
Furthermore, if they run into it again, that is a new encounter. Thus, unless the monster hasn't healed or regained resources, it is only right to give XP upon another fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common misconception: Dead Monster = XP, no. Defeated ENCOUNTER = XP, Dead, Ran away, turned into a good guy, whatever, unless, as ace said, the "encounter" did not "reset" it self.
In no AP, home game, PFS, etc have I even seen XP awarded for multiple encounters with the same enemy. XP awards are one and done.
The bottom line is the Core says that XP is rewarded for "defeating" monsters, not necessarily for killing them.
The language is left open exactly because a monster running away is just as reasonable a resolution as if it had been killed.
Note that the language is also devoid of any mention of recurring villains. I suspect that is because a villain with an escape plan and with plans to return and torture the PC some more has not been "defeated" yet, and so you don't reward the XP until:
a. he is killed; or
b. he is captured against his will; or
c. he swears off ever facing the PCs again (surrenders).
Indeed, as well stated by others above; XP is awarded for defeating the encounter. However, encounters are designed to use up a certain amount (approximately) of party resources (spells, consumables, hp, etc) as a gross measure of the challenge they faced. If the encounter ended up being less difficult because of the retreat, I'd say it is reasonable to award a modified sum, particularly if they are going to face that critter again and finish it.
|
Also keep in mind, Experience doesn't necessarily need to be a tally for Kills and encounters. Previous editions gave exp for using skills, bartering and other things during gameplay. This was streamlined in 3.0 when all the exp tables were joined into one and classes no longer had their own progression, caps based on race (Or you became a druid) and had other features normally done in the class writeup standerdized. (Feats gotten at specific levels and so on)
I think Bruunwald goes to far, you can still get EXP for encounters with the same enemy, it is just up to the GM how the story dictates how he has returned or if. It is also up to the GM on whether to reward the whole EXP on each encounter or a part of it depending on what was done. An example is that the character's higher level at the next meeting means less exp for the CR that the enemy has stayed at.
I see the returning enemy, if healed up and restored of any uses/day abilities, as equivalent of a new encounter. When you get into that sort of thing, you might as well have thrown out a new creature against the PCs anyway. You wouldn't say "Okay, you killed a goblin archer once. Now none of the goblin archers you face from here on out will give you XP." It's a different encounter each time. And encounters give XP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insert obligatory 'don't bother tracking XP' suggestion here.
|
|
That is just an example. I take it that most GMs would give a running gag minimal XP unless it is a actual encounter where she happened to slip away, the GM saving her for a later meeting. Perhaps it started to happen again and again, becoming a running gag accidentally.
Point is, you would give the EXP that is appropriate to the encounter. It matters not on whether you met Clarisa before or not, and if she doesn't level up with the characters, then there already is less exp coming because her CR is not inline with the party anymore in suppequint meetings.