Experience for lower CR monsters

[Greenfield]

I was DM in our regular D&D 3.5 game yesterday. The party is 15th and 16th levels.

Thy faced two Elder Storm Elementals (MM III, CR 14) an Air Elemental (CR 7) and a Fire Elemental (also CR 7).

According to the EXP chart in the DMG, the two CR 7s are worth exactly zero EXP to the party, yet they definitly added to the battle, and in the situation they made the situation far more dangerous for the player characters.

Any advice on how to adjudicate the EXP?

 

[Immortal Sun]

Not really. This is one of the reasons I don't use the EXP guidelines. I usually grade EXP by how much effort the players had to put into the fight, based on how many spells they used, how much HP got burned, how long the fight took, etc... If it was a cakewalk, 5% of EXP needed to level, if it was easy, 10%, if it was average, 15%, if it was hard, 20%, if it was really hard, 25%.

Did the extra CR 7's up the fight from "easy" to average? Give them an extra 15%. On top of 1500 EXP, that's really not much either way (225 EXP).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

According to the EXP chart in the DMG, the two CR 7s are worth exactly zero EXP to the party, yet they definitly added to the battle, and in the situation they made the situation far more dangerous for the player characters.

Could you explain in more detail how two monsters of less than half the level of the PC's were making the fight, "far more dangerous"? Are we talking a 4 PC party, with a balanced mix of classes, and with appropriate magic? CR alone never tells the whole story - and that indeed is a major factor in designing encounters and handing out xp. CR doesn't account for terrain, party health and resources on beginning a fight, player cleverness and skill, DM rat-bastardness, and the ever-popular "just too many good/bad die rolls". All that kind of stuff is too complicated to just plug into a formula that says, "give x more/less xp". It is all stuff that the DM has to decide on its POTENTIAL value to the encounter and adjust xp accordingly. Even if much of it doesn't play a part in the actual encounter that isn't the point because many such factors are dealt with at the time of the encounter by neutralizing terrain advantages, expending more resources if needed, or just having players finding an "I win" button that cuts things short of where you might have expected (which doesn't lessen the challenge that the PC's just faced).

If YOU feel they really added notably then adjust the xp by the value YOU think they legitimately increased the encounter by. Without a good deal more information on how they really factored in nobody out here can really give you a meaningful number. CR can be quite inaccurate but monsters of HALF the party level ought not be much concern even if their threat is non-trivial.

 

[Celebrim]

I was DM in our regular D&D 3.5 game yesterday. The party is 15th and 16th levels.

Thy faced two Elder Storm Elementals (MM III, CR 14) an Air Elemental (CR 7) and a Fire Elemental (also CR 7).

According to the EXP chart in the DMG, the two CR 7s are worth exactly zero EXP to the party, yet they definitly added to the battle, and in the situation they made the situation far more dangerous for the player characters.

Any advice on how to adjudicate the EXP?

I believe the CR's on elementals are wrong, which is a big part of the problem with what you describe. Huge Air Elementals are listed at CR 7, but they have perfect fly speed, DR 5/-, 16 HD, 136 hit points, and two +19 to hit attacks. They don't hit that hard, but they are definitely still relevant against 15th level characters because 16HD, etc.

They are probably closer to CR 9 IMO.

The ultimate problem with most of the XP in 3.5 is poorly assigned CR. There are no guidelines for assigning CR and many of the numbers are very much just ballparked. In a lot of ways, 1e AD&D assigned XP in a far more reasonable manner because it required you to count the positive factors that influenced its difficulty. It wasn't perfect, there probably should have been negative factors as well in some cases, but it was better than some of the '*shrug* let's go with this' numbers in 3.5 to say nothing of the 'we know this number is wrong but we have metagame reasons for misassigning it'.

In short, you have carefully chosen some of the few CR 7 monsters that stay relevant for a relatively long time in a relatively large number of situations because they have very high to hit bonuses, flight, good defenses and a lot of hit points.

I agree with @[Immortal Sun] that a good solution to this problem would be to have the presence of low level but still relevant minions count as a circumstance bonus with respect to the encounter and adjust upward the amount of XP received. I probably play a lot more attention to circumstances than Immortal Sun is even suggesting, as I like to set up the encounter in ways that highly favor the monster (a 'lair' as it were) and which greatly complicate the fight for the PC's. I've been known to award not just 10% or 20% bonuses, but 100% or 200% bonuses to the XP earned for a fight on terrain that was highly unfavorable to the party.

However, in this case I don't think the two CR 7 (probably closer to CR 9) monsters warrant that large of an adjustment. They add complication, but not a ton. A 10% or 20% bonus to XP is probably sufficient.

 

[Greenfield]

As a general reply: The Elmentals in general have weak Cs, depending more on their DR. Their attack bonuses are okay v the higher level character ACs, so they do some damage. What they do, tactically, is provide flanks, and complicate the lives of spell casters with their expanded area (i.e. Creatures Large and up usually have Reach, so casters need to worry far more about AoO when casting.)

Additionally, the Air Elemental's Whirlwind ability can catch up a PC in a wind/grapple that they can't escape from unless they can Fly (Save at the start, but nothing after that) that not only removes them from the fight, bud dumps damage on them automatically (no attack roll needed) every round for the duration. That makes them dangerous beyond their simple CR or hit dice. The ability to completely freeze out a PC for a time is huge. The auto damage is just icing on the cake.

Then there's the ability to kick up a blinding cloud of debris whenever they touch down, and/or to drop a carried/captured PC from just about any height they choose. Make no mistake, a well played Air Elemental can pose a real challenge.

As for the party makeup: One Cleric of Kord, a Ranger 2/Druid 14, A Minotaur Ranger 13 (ECL +2), a Rogue 15, a Paladin of Freedom (15) and an Orc Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple. There's also a Wizard 14/Aristocrat1/Eldritch Knight 1, but he's not in the game right now.

Because we take turns as DM, and we don't DM our own characters, the party will be down one of those characters at any time. Because my character, the Wiz, is the only dedicated Arcane caster, they're always light on magical firepower when I DM.

The Rogue's player is used to playing Pathfinder, and keeps trying to Sneak and/or Crit things like Elementals and Constructs. Because she uses light weapons (Rapier and daggers) or a Short Bow, the DR of these opponents renders her all but useless in the fray. I didn't plan things to nerf her, it just happened that way.

Similarly, the fact that the Elemental opponents are generally Neutral, on the Good/Evil scale, kind of keeps the Paladin's can of whoopass closed.

So no, it isn't a well balanced party. We currently have two heavy hitters (The Orc/Dragon Disciple and the Minotaur). The Paladin can crank it up to their scale when the situation is right. Two healers (Druid and Cleric), as well as the Paladin of Freedom when needed, and the Ranger who can use a wand, so we're okay there. The Rogue's player seldom DMs, so we almost always have a Rogue. It's the Wiz/Sorcerer slot that runs empty when I DM that throws them really, badly out of balance. I pretty much can't run Swarms at them because they're light on the area effect damage magic needed to deal with them.

Note that an otherwise manageable CR 14 Black Dragon becomes a TPK waiting to happen when you add the Half Fiend template. While the CR only bumps to 17 (manageable for a 15/16 level party), it has 22 hit dice, and all of the Half fiend spell-like abilities are based on Hit Dice. He can Paralyze the whole party (except the Orc/Dragon Disciple) for minutes at a time, no Save. (Look at Blasphemy, it's ugly). And the duration of that paralysis is effectively "The rest of your life" in combat with an Evil foe.

The current big-bad? A CR 14 Black Dragon, Half Fiend. They'e seen what he can do, once, so they should prepare. I hope they do.

Anyway, it's late and I've rambled enough. I hope this hasn't taken things too far away from the original question: How do you account for monstrous extras who are too low a CR to show up on the Exp charts, but which still contribute to the scene.

 

[Celebrim]

I hope this hasn't taken things too far away from the original question: How do you account for monstrous extras who are too low a CR to show up on the Exp charts, but which still contribute to the scene.

Well, I think I answered that, but I still insist the problem is that 3.5 has no concept of balance whatsoever. Not only is chargen/advancement utterly broken because charop/system mastery plays an excessive role in character prowess and intuitive builds are under powered, but 3.5 rebalanced the game based on the assumption that parties would use charop and rejiggered monsters to higher CR and with higher CR accordingly. This only exaggerated some of the problems in 3.0 such as the fact that they had deliberately decreased dragon CR by 2 under what playtesting had suggested because "they wanted dragons to be scary" (which is as nonsensical of a design decision as I've ever seen), and the CR's are often wildly inaccurate (consider them guesses by up to +/-2). Then there are individually hugely poorly thought out save or suck abilities such as entanglement, web, and as you note the 3.5 version of Blasphemy. The 3.5 version of Blasphemy is involved in a charop build that by 20th level can defeat most gods by raising caster level up to about 100 through a variety of poorly thought out rules, and then simply outright killing pretty much anything.

As a mini rant, 3.5 made a big deal of 'fixing' Harm and Haste, two spells that were arguably broken in 3.0. But then it went and broke with poorly thought out unplaytested changes scores of spells that weren't broken in 3.0 including Blasphemy, which used to be statically capped by the HD of the target and not relative to the caster level of the caster. The result was an 'Ok' crowd control spell became utterly game breaking. When I saw the 3.5 Player's Handbook, which I'd expected to be basically 3.0 with the errata in it, I never bought a book from WotC again. That was the breaking straw for me when I realized that I could write better rules than WotC, so why in the heck would I pay them for this crap.

There are some problems here that can't be helped owing to the games design. CR has to assume a balanced party with the range of options it expects, and sometimes that doesn't happen. But it doesn't help that WotC never seems to think through the consequences of their mechanics and address, "What happens if..." Likewise, LA, ECL, and a good portion of the templates are just busted. If you are trying to be a RBDM, there are tons of things you can do that in theory produce a creature of CR X, but which in fact hide the real increase in difficulty. For example, size change isn't normally a major increase in CR (if at all) because size increases carry so many penalties, but if the monster relies heavily a on grappling attack can get a huge boost in difficulty. (Likewise, a monster that can't be grappled and doesn't depends on physical weapons gets a huge bonus in capability but no increase of CR if you decrease its size.) There are also synergies which the game doesn't take into account, such as anything that gives a regenerating monster immunity to the sort of damage that bypasses regeneration, such as a troll with fire resistance.

In short, if you don't rewrite the whole darn game, then I think you have to recognize CR is just a ballpark number and not a firm contract. Who can't go, "Well, I'm just following the rules.", because it's just as possible to optimize monsters for a given theoretical CR as it is PC's. The DM can make pun-pun's as well.

 

[Greenfield]

The accuracy/reliability of the CR system varies wildly based on the party makeup and, to a lesser degree, spell selection. It's a guideline at best, and an outright fraud at worst.

Still, in 1st ed, there was an undead (I don't recall which, might have been a minor demon/devil) on the 1st level "Wandering Monster" table that couldn't be hit without a magic weapon. Never once saw a 1st level party with a magic weapon in it. (At least not one that wasn't a power gaming joke.)

<Edit> I suddenly recall. It was called a Mane. </Edit>

Dragons in 1st ed were always seen (at least in the games I played in) as "Whoo-eee, lots of treasure". You knew their hit points as soon as they breathed, and their size played against them since a party could swarm them from all sides. They weren't really scary at all. 2nd edition changed that, but 3.* made them what they were supposed to be. Part of the difference was Reach, as well as wing buffet and tail lash. Giving them five attacks a round, and more than three breath weapons a day made a huge difference.

I've noticed, over all, that every new version tries to "fix" the game balance by powering up the PCs. 3.* fixed the "Multi-class is the path to power" issue, which was good, and introduced a good skill system with fairly fine granularity. Feats were also a good addition. In first ed I could put together a 6th level fighter in ten minutes, mainly because every 6th level fighter had exactly the same attacks, saves and weapon proficiencies. Except for armor, items and weapon choices, and they were plug-in interchangeable. Same for Clerics and Thieves. Wizards tended to vary more because (at least by the rules) their spell choices in their books was based on a dice roll. They had to roll a % dice to see if they could learn a given spell.

3rd Ed was more about choices, options in feats and styles and skills, a game where ability scores above abysmal and below epic still counted for something.

4th edition, when it first appeared at least, seemed to be about a lack of choices. Oh, you got to make some when the character was created, but after that your character was on a single track of advancement. More advancement options were added later, but it was still very very restrictive.

I've played some 5th, but probably not enough to really comment. I remember finding it frustrating. After our third TPK at the hands of what should have been minor monsters we got tired of having to start over again and again. (Kobolds attacking at night gave them Advantage, if they were smart enough to pair up, and us disadvantage. Third level party gone, start again.) The group as a whole saw it as pointless and very unsatisfying.

Pathfinder seemed like 3.5 on a power trip. Many of the same flaws, scaled up, and an even poorer job of play testing. (3.* was poorly tested, if at all, above 10th level. Pathfinder authors admitted that they weren't worried about game balance at all, which is considerably worse, IMHO.)

But this topic isn't supposed to be a gripe fest about different systems.

I like the idea of treating minor monsters (those worth zero Exp by themselves) as "circumstance modifiers" for the bigger monsters. It's fair and consistent with RAW, which I find appealing.