Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SWBaxter

First Post
Quasqueton said:
I am truly stunned at the confusion someone must have about this data to even conceive of this kind of question. (I mean no offense to anyone.)

Well, I was able to conceive of it while also understanding what you had actually been doing, so I don't think I'm particularly confused about the data.

I don't really think the question is so far beyond the pale, as the rate of XP gain is pretty significantly affected by substituting more powerful critters in to face the higher level 3E party. Your study of D1 demonstrates this - if all the Drow, Troglodytes, etc. had gone through the same powerup between editions as the giants, the 3E group might have gotten a lot more XP. OTOH, I can also see that trying to account for those changes would be a ridiculous amount of work, added to what is already a pretty significant task, and wouldn't necessarily improve the usefulness of the results at all.

To me, the most enlightening part of your experiment is the rate at which the 1E group is advancing. It's still a fascinating exercise, hope to see more.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
I think there's a BIG point to remember. For 1e characters, the vast majority of xp comes from treasure. Kill xp is just bonus. You could half or even quarter the kill xp and it wouldn't significantly change the outcomes.
 

Quasqueton

First Post
Geez, why do you have to be so antagonistic everything?
I’m not being antagonistic. I’ve not said anything antagonistic. I don’t feel any antagonism.

The problem being, of course, that AD&D Hill Giants aren't the same as D&D3 Hill Giants. They're different monsters. (If you compared AD&D2 Hill Giants against D&D3 Hill Giants, it'd be closer).
There is no “cross-edition” combat going on, so I don’t see how a difference in stats between the editions matters.

Unless you are saying that the hill giant-to-PCs power/difficulty/danger ratio is significantly different within their respective editions. Are D&D3 hill giants significantly more or less powerful/difficult/dangerous to D&D3 8th-level PCs than AD&D1 hill giants are to AD&D1 8th-level PCs.

And even if this is the contention, I don't see what it matters when adding up the xp awards for the given challenges. So the D&D3 PCs had a harder/easier time with a particular challenge -- they still just get the book value xp award.

I can completely leave out the D&D3 xp data if it is causing this much confusion.

Quasqueton
 
Last edited:

Garnfellow

Explorer
Quasqueton said:
I’m not being antagonistic. I’ve not said anything antagonistic. I don’t feel any antagonism.

I think the work you're doing is great, and I really hope to see more of it. But you might take a second look at some of your responses to recent questions -- maybe you had completely different intentions, but your answers sound pretty defensive, if not downright testy, to what are probably just innocent questions. Just keep in mind, it can be really hard to read people's minds on this intarweb thingie.
 


Garnfellow

Explorer
Quasqueton said:
Can you quote a particular response that read as antagonistic?

Sure thing.

Quasqueton said:
I am truly stunned at the confusion someone must have about this data to even conceive of this kind of question. (I mean no offense to anyone.)

That little parenthetical note at the end cannot begin to counterbalance the offensiveness of your first sentence, in which you seriously question the intellect of a previous poster. It's like when someone adds a cute smilely emoticon at the end of a nasty insult. I don't think you really meant to be rude, but that's certainly how it came across.

Look, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion about netiquette or tone -- there are too many, much more interesting things here to post about.
 

Quasqueton

First Post
I would guess he was wondering if you were using AD&D giant stats for the D&D3 encounters, which would make an individual hill giant around CR 2 or 3, rather than 7.
Originally Posted by Quasqueton
I am truly stunned at the confusion someone must have about this data to even conceive of this kind of question. (I mean no offense to anyone.)
That little parenthetical note at the end cannot begin to counterbalance the offensiveness of your first sentence, in which you seriously question the intellect of a previous poster. It's like when someone adds a cute smilely emoticon at the end of a nasty insult. I don't think you really meant to be rude, but that's certainly how it came across.
Someone was wondering if I was using AD&D1 giant stats for the D&D3 encounters. For them to wonder this, they must think I’m actually running the adventure, and that I might be using AD&D1 stats for the D&D3 version of the run.

How is that thought not born of terrible confusion of what is presented in this thread?

Confusion does not mean stupidity. Pointing out that a thought is very confused is not questioning the thinker’s intellect.

My statement was not meant to be offensive, it was not a nasty insult, and the parenthetical note after it was meant to confirm that.

Quasqueton
 

Quasqueton

First Post
AD&D1 - The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth

Here is the treasure (gold and magic) from another AD&D1 adventure. But this one is outside the "adventure path" of ToEE and GDQ. Since the xp issue seems to be such a troublesome point for many people, I didn't bother figuring it up for this module.
The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth by Gary Gygax
An adventure for character levels 6-10, for AD&D1.

Total gp value: 293,960gp

Total magic treasure:
dagger +2 longtooth
bracers of defense AC 5
arrows +1 (x4)
cloak of poisonousness
boots of levitation
boots of dancing
magic boat*
lens of detection
bag of holding
horn of fog
ring of protection +1
battle axe +2, +4 vs. undead and negative plane creatures
cursed broadsword +1(yes, that's plus one)**
necklace of missiles (one 9HD missile)
wand of magic missiles (100 charges)
battle axe +2
ring of warmth
bracers of defense AC 7
candle of invocation (Chaotic Good)
serpentine owl
short sword +1
scale mail +2
spear +2
periapt of proof against poison +3
wings of flying
horseman's pick +1
cloak of elvenkind
boots of elvenkind
rug of smothering
Keoghtom's ointment (x2)
brooch of shielding
scrolls of protection: elementals, possession
potions: healing, vitality, green dragon control, water breathing (x2), extra healing, dimunition, poison, polymorph self, plant control, clairvoyance
magic-user scrolls: slow, stone to flesh, phase door (17th level), write, fool's gold, magic mouth, dispel magic, distance distortion, statue, darkness, forget, fly, animal growth, cloudkill
cleric scrolls: resist fire, remove curse, raise dead, heal
illusionist scrolls: color spray, non-detection, maze
bastard sword +4 (Chaotic Evil)
plate mail +2
slippers of spiderclimb
Daoud's wondrous lanthorn
prison of Zagyg
Demonomicon
manual of bodily health
manual of gainful exercise
manual of quickness of action
tome of clear thought
tome of leadership and influence
tome of understanding

* Moves and stops on command, and shrinks to 10% size on command.

** "The cursed broadsword is absolutely neutral in alignment, and it has the power to generate illusion (as a wand) even though it has no discernible intelligence. Such illusions last for 1d4+4 melee rounds, and operate periodically after an interval of from 3d6 turns."
Interesting note in the Afterward:
During the course of several game sessions, player characters may accumulate enough experience points to qualify for an increase in level. Because the caverns are so far from any place where characters can train, the DM may allow player characters to advance without prior training, provided that the quality of play has been very high. Regulating the amount of time and treasure needed to train is important in the proper handling of a campaign. If you choose to allow player characters to advance in level without training, it should be because of their playing skill, and the special circumstances of this module. Advancement without training should be regarded as a reward for excellence rather than as a normal part of the campaign.

Poor play does not merit special consideration. Players will not improve if the DM pampers rather than challenges them. If your players perform badly, do not allow their characters to increase in experience level. Be most judicious in how you handle awards to player characters. Allowing foolish and ignorant players to advance their characters to high levels reflects badly upon the game and even more so upon the Dungeon Master who allowed such a travesty to occur. In effect, it is the excellence of the DM which is judged when the caliber of play by any group is discussed. Keep yours high!
Quasqueton
 
Last edited:

Quasqueton said:
My statement was not meant to be offensive, it was not a nasty insult, and the parenthetical note after it was meant to confirm that.
You felt such a parenthetical note and confirmation was a necessary addition to a completely inoffensive post? Just say'n... :uhoh:
 

shilsen

Adventurer
Quasqueton said:
Interesting note in the Afterward:

During the course of several game sessions, player characters may accumulate enough experience points to qualify for an increase in level. Because the caverns are so far from any place where characters can train, the DM may allow player characters to advance without prior training, provided that the quality of play has been very high. Regulating the amount of time and treasure needed to train is important in the proper handling of a campaign. If you choose to allow player characters to advance in level without training, it should be because of their playing skill, and the special circumstances of this module. Advancement without training should be regarded as a reward for excellence rather than as a normal part of the campaign.

Poor play does not merit special consideration. Players will not improve if the DM pampers rather than challenges them. If your players perform badly, do not allow their characters to increase in experience level. Be most judicious in how you handle awards to player characters. Allowing foolish and ignorant players to advance their characters to high levels reflects badly upon the game and even more so upon the Dungeon Master who allowed such a travesty to occur. In effect, it is the excellence of the DM which is judged when the caliber of play by any group is discussed. Keep yours high!

Damn! That sounds like something you might tell a teacher about grading and student behavior and improvement.

As a teacher myself, let me just say - yeesh!
 

Quasqueton

First Post
You felt such a parenthetical note and confirmation was a necessary addition to a completely inoffensive post? Just say'n...
That conversation and controversy is 6 months old. Can we move past it?

Quasqueton
 

molonel

First Post
I, for one, want to echo the "This thread is really interesting" sentiment expressed already, and encourage people to lay their swords down and not derail the thread.
 



Jer

Legend
Supporter
Naidim said:
Please continue WITH xp calculations. I'm looking forward to the D3 and Q1 results.

I agree with this sentiment. Some folks may be less interested in the XP comparisons, but I find them fascinating. I never handed out XP for treasure, and I always thought tripling the XP for combat would be enough, but these comparisons and the discussion that they have brought out are fascinating. Speaking for myself, I really appreciate the amount of work you've put into this to give this set of insights.
 


zoroaster100

First Post
I think that one powerful factor affecting XP earned in 1st edition is that in 1st edition modules much of the best treasure was so ridiculously well hidden in all sorts of arbitrary ways in the dungeon that it really would be unfair to assume any party would be getting all or even most of the treasure.
 

Slife

First Post
zoroaster100 said:
I think that one powerful factor affecting XP earned in 1st edition is that in 1st edition modules much of the best treasure was so ridiculously well hidden in all sorts of arbitrary ways in the dungeon that it really would be unfair to assume any party would be getting all or even most of the treasure.
Of course, the best treasure is magical, and since, IIRC, Quas isn't including magical treasure in XP calculations, it evens out.
 

Quasqueton

First Post
I think that one powerful factor affecting XP earned in 1st edition is that in 1st edition modules much of the best treasure was so ridiculously well hidden in all sorts of arbitrary ways in the dungeon that it really would be unfair to assume any party would be getting all or even most of the treasure.
I’ve read this assertion before, but I haven’t seen this in the adventure modules I’ve gone through. The vast majority of treasure is not hidden. And that treasure that is hidden, is not much, and only rarely “ridiculously” or “devilishly” (as someone else said) well hidden.

The Moathouse's "hidden" treasure:

1- in the belly of a giant frog = a 100gp gem

2- "the brigands have buried a chest. . . Three turns of digging" = 265gp value, +1 arrows (x4)

3- "in the litter of its nesting" = 850gp value

4- In a lone wall cresset, a "nondescript torch stub is a silver baton" = 30gp value

5- "[The giant lizard] has previously swallowed a shield +1, easily found if appropriate actions are taken after the battle." = +1 shield

6- "hidden behind a loose stone" = 500gp value

7- "intermixed with the old carpeting and rags of [the ogre's] bedding" = elven cloak

8- in a pool of water, under a skull = a pin worth a total of 2,000gp

9- in the "mess" of a ghoul nest = 40gp value, 1 potion, 1 scroll

10- "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber = 15,000gp piece of jewelry [Is this actually "hidden", in the context of this discussion? Just in a cabinet.]

Total of 3,785 gp value (out of 30,938gp) not immediately or obviously discoverable. Plus a 15,000gp piece of jewelry "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber, which "If seriously threatened, Lareth will offer all his non-magical treasures---jewelry, coins, and all else---as ransom for his life."

Quasqueton
 

molonel

First Post
zoroaster100 said:
I think that one powerful factor affecting XP earned in 1st edition is that in 1st edition modules much of the best treasure was so ridiculously well hidden in all sorts of arbitrary ways in the dungeon that it really would be unfair to assume any party would be getting all or even most of the treasure.

Quas already addressed this, but I'll add my two coppers. Whenever we played a module in my 1st Edition campaigns, our party would stay for a few weeks afterward and search every room top to bottom. Just in case.

And since the DM would usually pitch the module afterward, or let us read it, I can definitely say that we rarely missed a thing.

This is a very good thread, Quas, and very timely. I think it factually dispells some of the claims we've been seeing lately about earlier editions of the game.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top