Too Far

[Daulmakan]

In both cases, the party gets the same XP for defeating the same creature, even though the process for each case differes greatly.

That's what I'm saying. The process is different (fireballs or demons), the end result is the same.

 

PS In case it's not obvious - I'm advocating the position that granting XP for killed summons is not justified within game rules.

You missed my entire point. A Demon is an extra creature defeated, a Fireball is not. Killing a Glabrezu demands resources: attacks, spells, and so on. Resisting a Fireball is a passive action.

[phordicus]

a summoned creature is -- for XP purposes -- just a tool of the mage, just like extra attacks are for a fighter or a backstab for a thief. a mage devoting a spell slot to MS1 instead of fireball doesn't automatically make the encounter worth more xp.

 

jfc.

 

[edited for politeness]

Edited December 14, 2010 by phordicus

[Daulmakan]

That's what Ardanis has been saying and what I've been arguing against all this time.

 

A level 8 spell slot != a demon from the lower planes, you have it wrong. The demon has an XP listed value, a spell does not. And your post doesn't adress my previous one.

[Ardanis]

Alterations in the spell system is what concerns me most as I doubt the AI can use their new spell book efficiently. Maybe SCS can deal with that but what will happen if SCS is not installed? I have two copies of BG installed, one with SCS and one without.

Quoting David, "vanilla AI is sufficiently stupid for all these changes to just roll over it".

 

You missed my entire point. A Demon is an extra creature defeated, a Fireball is not.

The was no demon to begin with, as there was no Fireball. They are not independent entities and do not appear by themselves, but only if and when a wizard wishes so. Both are the offensive product of said wizard's spellcasting, that party has to deal with one way or another.

 

Killing a Glabrezu demands resources: attacks, spells, and so on. Resisting a Fireball is a passive action.

Resisting a spell requires protective buffs, dispels and healing potions, sometimes even raising dead, depending on the type. It is not for free and consumes resources just as fine.

 

The demon has an XP listed value, a spell does not.

Spell slots contribute to caster's total XP worth. If he had no spells available at all, he would be 500 XP at most, as a mediocre fighter with no skill.

[Daulmakan]

The was no demon to begin with, as there was no Fireball. They are not independent entities and do not appear by themselves, but only if and when a wizard wishes so. Both are the offensive product of said wizard's spellcasting, that party has to deal with one way or another.

You keep ignoring what I say: the nature of the products is entirely different.

 

Resisting a spell requires protective buffs, dispels and healing potions, sometimes even raising dead, depending on the type. It is not for free and consumes resources just as fine.

Nope. Making a save and just taking damage requires nothing, and then you have all your action points for that round available for making an attack, without having to worry about the summon in question.

 

Spell slots contribute to caster's total XP worth. If he had no spells available at all, he would be 500 XP at most, as a mediocre fighter with no skill.

But the main point here is not the caster, but the summons. If the summoned monster would yield XP when killed individually, why killing it when summoned by a mage doesn't?

 

 

Perhaps a separation of points is best. If you prefer no XP to be awarded for summons because it makes the game harder, then it's enough of a reason. But the justification derives from the purpose itself, and as such, isn't convincing when the implementation is separated from that purpose.

[Ardanis]

You keep ignoring what I say: the nature of the products is entirely different.

You say that we can use several spells to generate XP out of nowhere, perpetuum mobile? It contradicts laws of thermodynamics, and while I know we're talking about magic in fantasy setting, I'd find it strange to not apply it onto well-developed game system.

 

If the summoned monster would yield XP when killed individually, why killing it when summoned by a mage doesn't?

Let's say there's a trial, in which party needs to dodge ten fiireballs (roughly speaking). Would it get XP for completing this quest? It should. Are fireballs any different from ones invoked by a lich? No. Does then fb yield XP in one case and doesn't in another? Yes.

In case of enemy spellcaster, fireballs and summons are already accounted for and XP reward for them is included in caster's worth. If they're independent source, then they count independently too.

 

If you prefer no XP to be awarded for summons because it makes the game harder, then it's enough of a reason.

I'm talking only about the concept, not game balance. Edited December 14, 2010 by Ardanis

[Daulmakan]

You keep ignoring what I say: the nature of the products is entirely different.

You say that we can use several spells to generate XP out of nowhere, perpetuum mobile? It contradicts laws of thermodynamics, and while I know we're talking about magic in fantasy setting, I'd find it strange to not apply it onto well-developed game system.

If, by some bizarre way, you manage to get an enemy wizard to keep throwing summons at you without killing him or getting killed in the process, which is inevitably halted at some point, as there's a limit to spells per day after all (after which you can just kill him), making this assumption pretty pointless, then I guess so. Note, however, 2 things: 1) the mage must be an enemy, party summon friendlies exploits are excluded. 2) the XP isn't generated out of nowhere, you're just bringing along a creature that was somewhere else at the point previous to the casting. Teleporting/plane shifting to its location instead and killing it would accomplish the same effect.

 

Taking your extreme example to the extreme, taking an enemy wizard prisoner and giving him a spellbook of only summoning spells and engaging him each day under monitored and regulated conditions by the party wouldn't yield XP because the DM could rule that there is no actual challenge there. Blatant exploits aren't part of my argument.

 

Let's say there's a trial, in which party needs to dodge ten fiireballs (roughly speaking). Would it get XP for completing this quest? It should. Are fireballs any different from ones invoked by a lich? No. Does then fb yield XP in one case and doesn't in another? Yes.

In case of enemy spellcaster, fireballs and summons are already accounted for and XP reward for them is included in caster's worth. If they're independent source, then they count independently too.

In that case, you get XP for completing the test, as in Quest experience. The fact that it involves fireballs is irrelevant. You can get dozens of thousands of XP just by answering a riddle, after all.

 

If you prefer no XP to be awarded for summons because it makes the game harder, then it's enough of a reason.

I'm talking only about the concept, not game balance.

I guess the discussion continues, then.

[Ardanis]

2) the XP isn't generated out of nowhere, you're just bringing along a creature that was somewhere else at the point previous to the casting. Teleporting/plane shifting to its location instead and killing it would accomplish the same effect.

Destroying celestial's avatar or banishing a demon from Prime doesn't kill the original creature, it remains where it belong after the fight is over and perhaps just feels bitter. Same is true for elementals, afaik. So going to extreme, you do not perform an actual kill, so no XP for it.

Where do regular gnolls/animals/nymphs come from btw? I don't recall it's been ever specified anywhere... But I think it doesn't happen for a group of kobolds to walk around a cave, minding their own business, and suddenly be teleported into the midst of fireballs and die for nothing.

 

Taking your extreme example to the extreme, taking an enemy wizard prisoner and giving him a spellbook of only summoning spells and engaging him each day under monitored and regulated conditions by the party wouldn't yield XP because the DM could rule that there is no actual challenge there. Blatant exploits aren't part of my argument.

That's exactly what I've been talking about.

Why would there be no challenge? Soldiers train all day long, over and over again, in order to gain as much XP as possible, not because they've got nothing better to do.

 

In that case, you get XP for completing the test, as in Quest experience. The fact that it involves fireballs is irrelevant.

Would then it be relevant it there were summoned monsters, in place of fireballs? Apparently no, because as you say it could be a riddle as well. Edited December 14, 2010 by Ardanis

[Aranthys]

Summoned Creatures should grant XP.

Just for the fact that they're usually much more capable than a spell of the same level.

Now, how about, instead of having it grant the same XP as the original critter, only grant half the XP or 10% ?

 

And, I've got to say, I agree with Daulmakan.

[Constantine]

Summoned Creatures should grant XP.

Just for the fact that they're usually much more capable than a spell of the same level.

Now, how about, instead of having it grant the same XP as the original critter, only grant half the XP or 10% ?

 

And, I've got to say, I agree with Daulmakan.

I second this. Killing hostile summons should yield some xp for the party, maybe not 100%, but players definitely should get something.

[Salk]

It's an interesting debate and both parties have point and merit.

 

Still I am on Daulmakan's side in the end. This because, just in opposition of what phordicus said, I can't see a summoned creature as a mere tool of the caster but as an individual opponent. In PnP lore a summoned creature might not be tolerant to the summoner's will and be hostile. Especially if we are speaking of demons.

 

When summoning, my enemy calls forth powers that might well be beyond their direct control and as such I consider summoned creatures unique and worthy of their own XP value.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Salk

[Demivrgvs]

It's an interesting debate and both parties have point and merit.

I was going to say the same, though I tend to agree a little more with Ardanis and DavidW.

 

When it comes to "balance" instead of "concept" I'd say summons shouldn't grant xp. It's probably not a game changing issue, but this game already offers really too much experience points, too easily.

 

Still I am on Daulmakan's side in the end. This because, just in opposition of what phordicus said, I can't see a summoned creature as a mere tool of the caster but as an individual opponent. In PnP lore a summoned creature might not be tolerant to the summoner's will and be hostile. Especially if we are speaking of demons.

 

When summoning, my enemy calls forth powers that might well be beyond their direct control and as such I consider summoned creatures unique and worthy of their own XP value.

This is true only for the "Planar Binding" serie of spells, in BG terms a very limited amount of summoning spells (vanilla's Genies, Conjure Elementals, and gated demons). And considering only summoned demons still work this way I'd say such point could be valid only for them.

[Salk]

Still I am on Daulmakan's side in the end. This because, just in opposition of what phordicus said, I can't see a summoned creature as a mere tool of the caster but as an individual opponent. In PnP lore a summoned creature might not be tolerant to the summoner's will and be hostile. Especially if we are speaking of demons.

 

When summoning, my enemy calls forth powers that might well be beyond their direct control and as such I consider summoned creatures unique and worthy of their own XP value.

This is true only for the "Planar Binding" serie of spells, in BG terms a very limited amount of summoning spells (vanilla's Genies, Conjure Elementals, and gated demons). And considering only summoned demons still work this way I'd say such point could be valid only for them.

 

What you say is certainly true. But then why not grant XP for at least the summoned demons?

 

It would fit both concept and game balance since such XP gain would only be limited to them.

[Shaitan]

I'm on the no XP from summoned critters party. But I did find Daulmakan's arguments to make me unsure... Whatever decided (if anything it still is up to DavidW) I feel it will be good enough.

[DavidW]

I'm on the no XP from summoned critters party. But I did find Daulmakan's arguments to make me unsure... Whatever decided (if anything it still is up to DavidW) I feel it will be good enough.

 

Is it up to me? I didn't think I changed XP levels for summoned creatures?

 

If it is up to me, expect no XP. I haven't seen a remotely convincing argument to the contrary on this thread. In particular, the double-counting argument (XP for killing summoned monsters is included implicitly in the XP for killing the summoner) doesn't seem to have been addressed. The only exception I can see is Aranthys's observation that summoning spells are substantially more powerful than other spells of the same level. I'm not convinced that's the case (whether I'd rather give an SCS enemy wizard Horrid Wilting or Summon Fiend is pretty situation-dependent) but if I were to be convinced, it's a case for altering the spell system, not the XP system.