[zedcuk]

I agree. Killing goblin children is bad. Unless your a palladin and then it might have some merit ;-)

Also agree combat shouldnt be the only way to get past something. A thief should earn exp for disarming a trap.

Dont follow your comment re hardcore dnd. A wizard shares in the parties exp total not their solo kills total. Looking at 3.5 theyve changed xp slightly to reflect a characters level.

So if im in a party @ lvl 1 with a Wizard (lvl 1) a Rogue (lvl 1) a WArrior and a cleric we meet 4 orcs ( would be an EL2 encounter.. a bit tough for my group but doable), lets say the following happens:

WArrior kills orc 1 in first round.
Rogue sneak attacks orc no 2. killing it.
Wizard casts MM on the 3rd. Doesnt kill it but its down to 1 hp
Cleric casts bless on Warrior

Round 2
Warrior finishes off wizards kill
Rogue kills last orc
Cleric / wizard do nothing.

all 4 players contributed to the kill, they should get the same amount of experience even though the cleric never killed the monster at all.

Now imagine the thief sneaks 50ft down a passage, finds 2 orcs and kills both before the group get to the thief. should everyone get exp? technically dnd rules states yes, howerver the rogue was the only one in combat.

If you play it so that you only earn exp for you kills at lower levels wizards would have to solo, theyd get out damaged by fighters. At higher levels wizards would be forced to solo - theyd outdamage everyone else apart from a well built cleric ;-) until there spell slots ran out...

And there in lies another interesting question: how will that be handled