AD&D1 giants

[diaglo]

Yes, but this is 1e, where weird departures from the norm are, well, normal.

For me it's part of the charm of the system, although I don't doubt that someone will chime in shortly to tell me that all these exceptions are un-fun, arbitrary, wrong, bad, and in fact completely evil.

the monsters of 4 hd couldn't harm creatures with +1 immunity....

but a monster of 4+ could.

i think some of this ties in with other similar conventions for higher + immunities (+2, +3, +4)

 

[Melan]

Was the "if it has more than +3 to its Hp, it hits as a higher HD monster" rule added in 2nd edition, or already present in 1st?

 

[diaglo]

Was the "if it has more than +3 to its Hp, it hits as a higher HD monster" rule added in 2nd edition, or already present in 1st?

it was in 1edADnD too.

 

[MerricB]

Was the "if it has more than +3 to its Hp, it hits as a higher HD monster" rule added in 2nd edition, or already present in 1st?

That's a 1e rule.

Cheers!

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

When I DMed AD&D1, I went with the “A” answer. But I thought that a weird way of giving HD. Now, looking back over my books recently, I’m thinking I had it wrong.

I think "A" is correct, and yes it was a weird way of handling it.

 

[Quasqueton]

I don't doubt that someone will chime in shortly to tell me that all these exceptions are un-fun, arbitrary, wrong, bad, and in fact completely evil.

No, just chaotic. ;-)

Quasqueton

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The dreaded juju zombie has 4+13 !

Bah!

Bill, I'll see your 4+13 and raise you a 10+48 (mezzodaemon).

 

[Contrarian]

It's "A." Two huge problems with interpreation B:

1) It's inconsistent with the monsters that definitely have a variable number of Hit Dice: Dragons, hydras, shambling mounds, sahuagin clerics, sharks, titans, and whales. All of those monsters have their Hit Dice ranges clearly written as ranges like "8-10" or "5 to 12".

2) Interpretation "B" would make the XP Values listed in Appendix E of the DMG wrong, because 1E XP Values are based on Hit Dice. Those values would be undervaluing high-HD monsters.

In fact, looking at Appendix E is how I made that list of monsters with variable Hit Dice -- most of them are marked with two asterisks for XP Value , because the variable Hit Dice "preclude a fixed number."

So, again: Interpretation "B" hopelessly wrong. Case closed.

 

[Quasqueton]

Bill, I'll see your 4+13 and raise you a 10+48 (mezzodaemon).

But, again, I point out that the plus is not a range. The +13 and +48 make the monster tougher (last longer in a fight) without substantially increasing its offense (to hit). And there still is no space between the base HD and the plus sign.

But hey, I'm not arguing for the B answer -- just making sure all things are considered.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

It's "A." Two huge problems with interpreation B:

1) It's inconsistent with the monsters that definitely have a variable number of Hit Dice: Dragons, hydras, shambling mounds, sahuagin clerics, sharks, titans, and whales. All of those monsters have their Hit Dice ranges clearly written as ranges like "8-10" or "5 to 12".

2) Interpretation "B" would make the XP Values listed in Appendix E of the DMG wrong, because 1E XP Values are based on Hit Dice. Those values would be undervaluing high-HD monsters.

In fact, looking at Appendix E is how I made that list of monsters with variable Hit Dice -- most of them are marked with two asterisks for XP Value , because the variable Hit Dice "preclude a fixed number."

So, again: Interpretation "B" hopelessly wrong. Case closed.

Good points. Thanks for this. Seems my original thoughts/interpretations were correct. A seems the answer.

Quasqueton

[Edit: Or maybe its 8 HD, minus 10 hit points? Just kidding.]