Dungeon Level = Monster Level?

[mattcolville]

I remember Gygax being worried that the term "level" being used everywhere was going to confuse everyone so in the AD&D DMG (I believe) he advised people use different terms like "circle" for character level and "order" for spell.

I just looked through the DMG and cannot find that reference, but I know I've read it.

 

[frogimus]

Page B29 of my Moldvay book says "Hit Dice are also the level of the monster and the dungeon level on which it is most commonly found. In general a monster's level equals its number of hit dice, ignoring any pluses or minuses."

It goes on to say that "if a monster has several special powers, the DM may consider it one level greater than its hit dice."

Also that Monster level is only a guide and they may be found anywhere in a dungeon. It then lists suggestions about keeping them within two levels of their hit dice and adjusting number appearing.

Hmmm. I missed that sentence at the end if the paragraph. I stand corrected.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The HD/ dungeon level parity is merely a benchmark for comparison. A given dungeon level will on average, contain monsters of hit dice corresponding to the level. This assumes typical numbers appearing and treasure type for the monster.

There will be variations on this to keep a dungeon level from becoming too predictable. Dungeon level was a metagame construct presented as a clue to players about the general level of peril relative to themselves.

A level one dungeon may have higher level threats included but such monsters will not be at the same strength as they would be on a level closer to their own HD/ power level. Lets take a look at some of the possible encounters for a first dungeon level from the Monster & Treasure Assortment from TSR:

20. Orcs (2-5)
38. Giant Rats (3-12)
41. Goblins (2-8)
46. Bugbears (1-2)
52. Carrion Crawler (1)
68. Ogre (1)

Notice that the first three entries feature level 1 monsters appearing in their usual numbers. The last three entries feature higher level monsters. Because of the higher level of these monsters, their # appearing on level 1 is very limited. Lets look at a few possible encounters for dungeon level three:

23. Gargoyles (1-3)
31. Giant Rats (5-30)
37. Troll (1)
62. Ghouls (3-12)
80. Ogres (1-3)

On this table we have some tougher groups. The giant rats are the same type as found on level 1 but look at their # appearing here. Lower level monsters may appear on lower levels in greater numbers much like higher level monsters may appear on upper levels in limited numbers. The ogre result here likewise shows a potentially tougher encounter. A troll is level 6 monster but it appears here as a lone individual or "solo monster". For reference, on the 6th level trolls appear in groups of 2-5.


This sliding scale of HD and # appearing allows for quite a huge variety of dungeon populations without gross over or under powering.

Thus the dungeon level is a convenient yardstick for players measure their level of risk. When the dungeon tricks of sloping passages, elevator rooms, and teleporters are considered which may transport the party to levels of danger that they are unprepared for, the importance of mapping, and paying close attention to the environment become clearer. If your map suddenly starts not making sense then you might actually be somewhere other than where you believed that you were.

[MENTION=1300]mattcolville[/MENTION]

The passage you are looking for appears in the AD&D PHB p 8 An Explanation of the usages of the term "level".

 

[howandwhy99]

[MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] does a good job of explaining it. I've tried the same, but usually end up saying things like, "higher level monsters are found in lower numbers in higher dungeon levels with lower level treasures. Unlike lower level monsters who are found in higher number in lower dungeon levels with high level treasures." Simple, right?

 

[DMZ2112]

I think monster level and dungeon level coordinating is one of those system conceits that probably isn't right for most modern campaigns, but feels so quintessentially "D&D" (like alignment languages, or having a "Fighter's Guild," or a random dungeon layout where one room contains an altar and dais and the next is a natural cavern containing a mushroom forest). I have a pet setting that incorporates a lot of these things in a sort of four-color D&D-cartoon way, but I only really use it for dungeon crawls. If I'm trying to deliver an immersive, persistent experience I'm too focused on realism (or verisimilitude, if you prefer) to indulge that kind of humor.

That said, I think moving away from 'monster HD = monster level' is one of the biggest mistakes in D&D history, and one we're still paying for.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

HD/dungeon level gives me Ultima I flashbacks.

And yes, I realize its use in D&D pre-dates Ultima I.

 

[pemerton]

I think moving away from 'monster HD = monster level' is one of the biggest mistakes in D&D history, and one we're still paying for.

I'm not sure I follow.

In 4e, monster level does (roughly) equal monster HD: hp = (Level +1)*8 [or 6 or 10 for certain monsters with better or worse hit dice], plus CON score. Solos, elite and minions are different, but I assume they're not example of the mistake you have in mind (or, if they are, I'm not sure how they are a "mistake" that "we're still paying for").

Is there some problematic feature of 3E, or even of AD&D (in which monster level <> monster HD), that I'm missing?

 

[DMZ2112]

I'm not sure I follow.

In 4e, monster level does (roughly) equal monster HD: hp = (Level +1)*8 [or 6 or 10 for certain monsters with better or worse hit dice], plus CON score. Solos, elite and minions are different, but I assume they're not example of the mistake you have in mind (or, if they are, I'm not sure how they are a "mistake" that "we're still paying for").

If this is true, it hasn't been my experience, but I am willing to admit my comparative lack of knowledge about the edition. I was specifically referring to Challenge Rating from D&D3 and its perpetuation into Pathfinder.

Is there some problematic feature of 3E, or even of AD&D (in which monster level <> monster HD), that I'm missing?

CR was (is?) arbitrarily assigned according to some equation to which only the devs were privy. Possibly playtesting, although that is only marginally better. It didn't really become an issue until the edition became long in the tooth, much like many other complaints with D&D3.5.

 

[Ichneumon]

I remember Gygax being worried that the term "level" being used everywhere was going to confuse everyone so in the AD&D DMG (I believe) he advised people use different terms like "circle" for character level and "order" for spell.

I just looked through the DMG and cannot find that reference, but I know I've read it.

It's on page 8 of the PHB. He says they originally intended to use rank for character level, power for spell strength and order for monster strength, with level being reserved for dungeons.

 

[Ted Sandyman]

I think monster level and dungeon level coordinating is one of those system conceits that probably isn't right for most modern campaigns, but feels so quintessentially "D&D" (like alignment languages, or having a "Fighter's Guild," or a random dungeon layout where one room contains an altar and dais and the next is a natural cavern containing a mushroom forest). I have a pet setting that incorporates a lot of these things in a sort of four-color D&D-cartoon way, but I only really use it for dungeon crawls. If I'm trying to deliver an immersive, persistent experience I'm too focused on realism (or verisimilitude, if you prefer) to indulge that kind of humor.

Oh, I don't know. I think it depends on the particular metaphysics of your campaign world. If monsters are exuded from the deeper darkness below (more manifestations than species) and, rather than merely being extensions of the surface world, dungeons are the spaces below the fields men know where the deeper you go the more strange and perilous things become, then the conceit works quite well.