OD&D How do you interpret Yellow Mold spores?

[NotAYakk]

How do you teach the players (or characters) that, in world, yellow stuff on the floor will kill you without making the yellow mold a pointless obstacle? If it's too deadly, characters just avoid it. If there is a steep, but non-lethal cost to stepping in it, then you open the players to making a hard choice about whether to do so.

In world?

Maybe some characters die. Others survive, and now know about yellow mold.

Maybe there are encounters with various kinds of mold prior to this, so the players are leery of all dungeon-mold.

Maybe other characters who don't die from the encounter might write down "dungeon ecology" books, or read them written by other explorers.

A chance not to die the first time? Maybe the first time they find the mold there is a skeleton in it. Maybe it is along a route that isn't protected by the Goblins and they should wonder why the Goblins aren't protecting it.

 

[Michael Linke]

A round in becmi is 10 seconds. A turn is 60 rounds (10 minutes).
One minute rounds are from AD&D.

 

[Michael Linke]

If the players are clever, they'll bring a variety of tools to bear: wet cloths tied over their faces to make it less likely they'll breathe in the spores

"anyone caught within the cloud will take 1d6 points of damage and must make a save throw vs death ray or choke to death within 6 rounds."

The description actually doesn't say you need to inhale the spores, you just need to be caught within the cloud. Presumably they enter through the eyes, ears or pores.

 

[Jack Daniel]

"anyone caught within the cloud will take 1d6 points of damage and must make a save throw vs death ray or choke to death within 6 rounds."

The description actually doesn't say you need to inhale the spores, you just need to be caught within the cloud. Presumably they enter through the eyes, ears or pores.

If the players come up with a reasonable counter-measure, you as the DM are empowered to make a ruling. Old-school D&D isn't meant for slavish adherence to the letter of every rule; be guided by common sense and what's happening in the fiction as you understand it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

To curb the deadly accidents that have threatening underground societies, concerned, underdark botanists have collected yellow mold and have been cross-bred it with lesser potent specimens to create the less deadly variety that is found in dungeons all over the world today. These hard working individuals have been lauded for their efforts to make the underdark a safer, gentler place.

Spoiler: 5e yellow mold

Patches of yellow mold are most commonly encountered in dark, damp locations, and grows in 5-foot square and larger patches. If disturbed, the yellow mold releases a cloud of spores in a 10-foot radius around itself. Creatures caught in the spore cloud take 11 (2d10) poison damage and must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 minute. The creature takes an additional 5 (1d10) poison damage at the start of each of their turns and can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of their turns, ending the effect ton itself on a successful save.

 

[Mannahnin]

The entry says you "must make a save vs death ray or choke to death within 6 rounds." It seems like a lot of old rules interpretations hinge on where/when/whether the editor felt a comma was appropriate.

The most immediately obvious interpretation is that you make a save when the spores hit you, and if you fail, you know you have 60 seconds to "live". This makes a 25 XP monster terrifyingly deadly for low level characters.

Another interpretation, which i will probably adopt as a permanent house rule, is that the character begins choking as soon as he or she is hit by the spores, and continues to choke until a successful saving throw vs death ray. If the character chokes for 6 rounds without recovering, they die. This interpretation is less immediately lethal for low level characters, but could make these creatures consequential obstacles for higher level characters. They're very likely to shake off the choking before dying, but will be incapacitated (and noisy) for at least a round. A few of these in a room could temporarily neutralize a character, especially if the monsters in the room are Undead, and immune to the effect.

25xp is, I think, a misleading data point, given that it is easy to deal with once you know what it is and that it's there, and that that's from an edition where monsters deliberately aren't worth much xp.

Your suggested rule is a neat concept, but is definitely nerfing the mold a bit far, I think. Allowing six saves means virtually no chance of failure (just back of the napkin math is that if a character had a 10+ PPDR save, it's about a 98.5% chance of success).

I like the core idea, that it initially disables but you have a chance to recover rather than being instantly doomed, and I dig the concept you've got of it weakening the party and making them vulnerable to other nearby threats, but a save every round seems to be taking it a bit far.

Maybe if each failed save also caused a d6 damage, or if you got just a second save after three rounds, that would be a nice middle ground. Still often lethal (especially to low levelers), but a bit less one-roll-or-dead.

Overall I agree with the other folks that as an OD&D save or die hazard, it should be signposted at least the first time it's used, and at least hinted at or more subtly signposted later. Or presented as an obvious hazard with a choice to be resolved (like the skeleton holding treasure, covered in mold example).

 

[Michael Linke]

25xp is, I think, a misleading data point, given that it is easy to deal with once you know what it is and that it's there, and that that's from an edition where monsters deliberately aren't worth much xp.

Your suggested rule is a neat concept, but is definitely nerfing the mold a bit far, I think. Allowing six saves means virtually no chance of failure (just back of the napkin math is that if a character had a 10+ PPDR save, it's about a 98.5% chance of success).

I like the core idea, that it initially disables but you have a chance to recover rather than being instantly doomed, and I dig the concept you've got of it weakening the party and making them vulnerable to other nearby threats, but a save every round seems to be taking it a bit far.

Maybe if each failed save also caused a d6 damage, or if you got just a second save after three rounds, that would be a nice middle ground. Still often lethal (especially to low levelers), but a bit less one-roll-or-dead.

Overall I agree with the other folks that as an OD&D save or die hazard, it should be signposted at least the first time it's used, and at least hinted at or more subtly signposted later. Or presented as an obvious hazard with a choice to be resolved (like the skeleton holding treasure, covered in mold example).

As far as telegraphing, I don't want characters to live or die solely by what the player knows to expect. Avoiding mold because your last PC died that way (or saw a mold covered skeleton once) even though your current character has no reason to know the danger sounds like metagaming to me.

The wizard, as part of his training, should've learned about harmfu/usefull molds. Likewise the thief will probably have an idea of what sort of traps might exist in the world. The fighter might be able to spot a chokepoint. I'm considering giving characters checks against their prime-req to do some of the work the dungeoneering knowledge skills do in later editions. But this raises awkward questions. Should Strength and Dexterity make Fighters and Thieves respectively "smarter" in these situations? Or, instead, should Fighters and Thieves suddenly want to invest in higher Int/Wis scores? Does a roll-under-attribute mechanic advantage good scores too much? Does 2d6+attribute modifier advantage them too little?

 

[Mannahnin]

Yup. For these reasons, and to avoid overvaluing ability scores (which I think is contrary to old school play) I'm more likely to have PCs roll a d6 and succeed on a 1 or 2 (like opening doors, or hearing a noise) when I feel the need to ask a player to roll for success at a noncombat task like this.

Ability checks have a long history of use too, though. I saw someone recently also suggest another difficulty adjustment mechanic too; if you think the task should be easy or especially difficult, have them roll both a d20 and a d6 for the check. If it's easy, they get to subtract the d6 from their roll. If difficult, add it. Professional knowledge could be considered as a factor in assessing difficulty.

I'm less concerned about metagaming in old school play. With players who I know have lots of monster knowledge, I can tweak some challenges to keep them guessing, and leave others as-written to make them feel good about their knowledge. I assume that characters run by experienced players have knowledge from folklore or teachers, though of course specific knowledge of a module I'd like disclosed so I can run something else, change the module up, or give an explanation for why their character has special knowledge.

 

[Jack Daniel]

As far as telegraphing, I don't want characters to live or die solely by what the player knows to expect. Avoiding mold because your last PC died that way (or saw a mold covered skeleton once) even though your current character has no reason to know the danger sounds like metagaming to me.

It is, but it's the good kind of metagaming. We call it "player skill."