OD&Ddoubts in od&d

rossik

Explorer
so, im about to choose and read the adventure im gonna DM to my friends, and i was re-reading my old d&d book (the thin one, with the big box and the zanzer dungeon map).

im not sure how to give Xp by treasure.

lets say 4 pcs fin 200 gp.

a)they gain 200 xp each?
b) they divide 200 xp - so, 50 xp each
c) they get the amount they keep to themselves (like, player 1 keep 75, then gain 75 xp, player 2 keep 50, so he gain 50 xp and so on..)

and how about "not coin" treasure, like a ruby, or a piece of art?

der_kluge

I believe in those early systems, it was simply meant to be the amount of (gp value) of treasure acquired. So, you'd need to determine gp values of the ruby and other treasures.

I think it's then assumed that players divvy things up evenly. I don't know why they would decide to allow one player to get more than the other. Unless they have some compelling reason to do so, I guess.

In terms of magic items, however, the person receiving the item would get the XP for that item.

Philotomy Jurament

First Post
Treasure XP is divided amongst the PCs (so 4 PCs finding 200 gp would get 50 XP each). For gems, jewelry, etc., you divide the gold piece value of the treasure.

Some DM just divide everything equally. Some DMs give the XP based upon the actual division of treasure. Thus, if 200gp were divided equally, but one PC also got a 100gp gem, the XP awards would be 50, 50, 50, 150. When you're using the approach, PCs will usually sell gems and such to make everything evenly divisible.

rossik

Explorer
der_kluge said:
I think it's then assumed that players divvy things up evenly. I don't know why they would decide to allow one player to get more than the other. Unless they have some compelling reason to do so, I guess.

.

well, i have seen more then once (and actualy done it too) a thief character find a treasure, but "declare" only 70% of it

thief looks to the pile of gold the party found (200 gp).
-hey guys, i will divide it, dont worry

(party dont know hes a thief!)

so, then u can imagine....

in this case, all party found the same amount, but the thief kept more then the others.

gizmo33

First Post
rossik said:
so, im about to choose and read the adventure im gonna DM to my friends, and i was re-reading my old d&d book (the thin one, with the big box and the zanzer dungeon map).

im not sure how to give Xp by treasure.

I have most of the old DnD books of the various editions but I don't recognize what rules you're talking about. A "big" box doesn't sound like ODnD to me, perhaps it's one of the basic editions. Who is the author?

T. Foster

First Post
In the edition of D&D you're talking about (as well as earlier editions of Classic D&D - Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer) total g.p. value of all treasure recovered is divided evenly among the surviving characters regardless of how the treasure itself is divided. Non-monetary treasure (ruby, art) is counted as its equivalent value in g.p., and magic items don't give any XP. So if a party of 4 found 200 gold pieces, a ruby worth 150 g.p., a piece of art worth 50 g.p., and a magical potion, they would divide 400 XP evenly -- everybody gets 100 XP -- regardless of how the treasure itself is actually divided.

In Original D&D (1974 brown booklets) and 1E AD&D, XP for treasure goes to the character who actually keeps the treasure, so if the division of treasure is uneven, the XP reward will also be uneven. Also, magic items grant XP -- if they're sold immediately, the g.p. sale value is counted for XP, if they're kept, the item itself is worth XP (less than the sale value, usually about 1/3). So if a party of 4 found 200 gold pieces, a ruby worth 150 g.p., a piece of art worth 50 g.p. and a potion (with an XP value of 150 and a sale value of 450 g.p.) and divided up the treasure so that character A got 125 g.p., character B got 75 g.p. plus the artwork, character C got the ruby, and character D got the potion, then characters A & B would both receive 125 XP, character C 150 XP, and character D would receive 150 XP if he kept the potion, or 450 XP if he sold it immediately.

T. Foster

First Post
gizmo33 said:
I have most of the old DnD books of the various editions but I don't recognize what rules you're talking about. A "big" box doesn't sound like ODnD to me, perhaps it's one of the basic editions. Who is the author?
He's talking about this set, which was released in 1991 alongside the Rules Cyclopedia and replaced the Mentzer red-box. I never owned this edition but from what I understand the rules are essentially identical to those in the Mentzer set (except that it covers levels 1-5 instead of 1-3).

rossik

Explorer
sorry for the mess, guys!

am i calling my box wrongly as "od&d"?
should i rfer to it as "basic d&d" or something?
(and yeah, im talking about that one in the link..ehehe...tks for that!)

Philotomy Jurament

First Post
rossik said:
sorry for the mess, guys!

am i calling my box wrongly as "od&d"?
should i rfer to it as "basic d&d" or something?
There's no "official" designations, but typically, these terms are used:

OD&D = the original three brown books + supplements
Holmes = the "blue book" basic set edited by Holmes.
B/X = the basic and expert sets edited by Moldvay/Cook/Marsh (Erol Otus art)
BECM or BECMI = basic, expert, companion, masters, and immortals set (edited by Frank Menzter) with Elmore cover art.
RC = Rules Cyclopedia. Basically BECM compiled, but with a few minor differences.

I haven't seen a designation for your set, but it's probably based on the Mentzer sets. The term "Classic D&D" is commonly used for all of these (although I personally tend to think of OD&D and Holmes as separate).

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...
rossik said:
thief looks to the pile of gold the party found (200 gp).
-hey guys, i will divide it, dont worry

In our case, it was Piratecat's elf.

We found 80gp?

"No problem. Here's 10 for you, 10 for you, 10 for you, 10 for you, 10 for you, and we'll put 10 in a party fund for emergencies."

6 PCs plus the party fund, and the elf always managed to divide everything nicely by 8...

-Hyp.

gizmo33

First Post
Philotomy Jurament said:
I haven't seen a designation for your set, but it's probably based on the Mentzer sets. The term "Classic D&D" is commonly used for all of these (although I personally tend to think of OD&D and Holmes as separate).

Holmes DnD and ODnD are seperate, sort of, as far as I can tell. All characters of 1st-3rd level use the same combat chart - which AFAICT is not the case in ODnD. Holmes DnD was a basic set, it described the first three character levels. In the introduction it says it's "based upon the original work published in 1974 and three supplementary booklets..." Seems that Holmes DnD considered itself an introduction to DnD, rather than as a slightly seperate game that Moldavy Basic was. Then again, the Holmes book, in the body of it, points players to the "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" game, but mention of a "witch" as a character class makes me think that this reference predates the publication of ADnD.

The thing about saying "Basic DnD" is "Classic DnD" is that I think ADnD, Holmes DnD, and ODnD all predate it. When I was a kid Basic DnD seemed pretty new fangled to me compared to the very primitive qualities of the older books. Then again, each new boxed set of "Basic" introduced a pile of new rules, up through the Immortals set. There's not much "Basic" about that.

Philotomy Jurament

First Post
Holmes is its own thing, of course, but I find it closer to OD&D than to B/X or BECM. I think it's mainly because of its approach to ability modifiers (almost identical to the mods. from OD&D's three little books, and quite different from B/X or BECM) and the way it handles magic armor and shields (they modify enemy to hit rolls, not AC -- just like OD&D). Also, Holmes Thieves lack a find trap ability (they have remove trap, only, like Supplement I thieves). And Holmes Elves progress separately as both Fighting Men and Magic Users, which is like OD&D, rather than like B/X's Elf class (although Holmes Elves have d6 for hit dice...).

Holmes is quirky. (Check out my Holmes/OD&D campaign log, and my OD&D musings page, if you're interested.)

Last edited:

gizmo33

First Post
Philotomy Jurament said:
Holmes is it's own thing, of course, but I find it closer to OD&D than to B/X or BECM.

Me too. It's pretty clearly intended to be an introduction to ADnD but seems to borrow alot from the spirit of ODnD.

It doesn't use the ADnD rules (that are in my copy of the 1E PHB anyway). It's possible either they decided to simplify the rules (which I don't see some of the differences as being simplifications), or maybe the ADnD rules weren't available to Holmes in their final form. The mention of a "witch" as an ADnD class to me is a strong hint that Holmes didn't know the ADnD game. Perhaps at the time ADnD wasn't written/finalized.

One odd thing - a 4th level magic-user in the sample dungeon is called a "thaumaturgist". But in both ADnD and ODnD, a 4th level magic-user is a "theurgist". The level titles for wizard otherwise conform to ODnD rather than ADnD. However, the ones for cleric matches ADnD in it's use of "priest" rather than "village priest" for third level. And the use of the phrase "fighting man" rather than "fighter" is classic ODnD terminology.

My theory - Holmes played ODnD, looked over Gygax's shoulder for 5 minutes at the ADnD rules, and wrote the Holmes basic set.

RFisher

Explorer
T. Foster said:
In the edition of D&D you're talking about (as well as earlier editions of Classic D&D - Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer) total g.p. value of all treasure recovered is divided evenly among the surviving characters regardless of how the treasure itself is divided. Non-monetary treasure (ruby, art) is counted as its equivalent value in g.p., and magic items don't give any XP. So if a party of 4 found 200 gold pieces, a ruby worth 150 g.p., a piece of art worth 50 g.p., and a magical potion, they would divide 400 XP evenly -- everybody gets 100 XP -- regardless of how the treasure itself is actually divided.

That's how I do it.

I tend to be pretty liberal about it. e.g. When the PCs gave a bunch of treasure back to its rightful owners, I still gave them XP for it. (Though I made it clear that they wouldn't earn the XP for that same treasure a second time if they then stole it back.)

Likewise, I often give the XP for defeating monsters/NPCs encountered even if there were no fight. (But again, a PC can only earn XP from a monster once. Coming back & killing it won't get you its XP a second time.)

The official rule (at least in c. 1981 D&D--as I read it) is that NPCs with the party consume a full share of XP but only get half of it. e.g. If 2 PCs & 1 NPC earned 300XP, the PCs would each get 100 & the NPC would get 50. 50XP would be effectively lost. I like to count them as half-characters instead. So, each PC would get 120, & the NPC would get 60.

& I'm still tempted to use the rule that you only get XP for gp when you spend it sometime.

rossik

Explorer
thanks for all the replies!

another question:

in RC, the "smash" movment seems a little too powerfull!

-you loose iniciative and gets -5 do attack
but
-you add your ST score to the damage!

is that right?
or am i reading it wrong?