Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 4962782" data-attributes="member: 3586">The thing is... 1e didn't. 3e was actually closer to 1e in that regard!If a group of four 4th level characters defeated 2 ogres in AD&amp;D, then you were meant to work out the relative difficulty of the encounter and adjust XP accordingly if it was simpler than it should have been. In this case, the PCs would have gained 10/16 of the regular XP (ogres have 4+1 HD which is equivalent to 5 in the system, so 10 HD of monsters to 16 of characters).The treasure XP was meant to be similarly modified (note that in the Tomb of Horrors it explicitly tells you to use a 1:2 ratio). Not surprisingly, it was one of the 1e rules that didn't get used that much, but it also existed in OD&amp;D, and you can see it being used in a few computer games (I experienced it in the old Angband &amp; Moria games, if anyone remembers them).Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 4962782, member: 3586"] The thing is... 1e [i]didn't[/i]. 3e was actually closer to 1e in that regard! If a group of four 4th level characters defeated 2 ogres in AD&D, then you were meant to work out the relative difficulty of the encounter and adjust XP accordingly if it was simpler than it should have been. In this case, the PCs would have gained 10/16 of the regular XP (ogres have 4+1 HD which is equivalent to 5 in the system, so 10 HD of monsters to 16 of characters). The treasure XP was meant to be similarly modified (note that in the Tomb of Horrors it explicitly tells you to use a 1:2 ratio). Not surprisingly, it was one of the 1e rules that didn't get used that much, but it also existed in OD&D, and you can see it being used in a few computer games (I experienced it in the old Angband & Moria games, if anyone remembers them). Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification