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

[Quasqueton]

Observations I've made based on the data:

Magic items were not rarer in AD&D1 than they are in D&D3. In fact, by the same levels, a party will probably have quite a bit more magic in AD&D1 than in D&D3. But D&D3 allows the PCs to tailor and customize their magic items to better suit their needs. An AD&D1 fighter may have a +1 broadsword, a +1 spear, a +1 handaxe, and a +2 dagger at 5th level, but the D&D3 fighter might have his preferred +2 greatsword at 5th level. (A quantity vs. quality issue?)

And especially things like potions and scrolls. Note how the poor AD&D1 illusionist in this data doesn't find a scroll until about 6th level, and it has only one spell. A D&D3 spellcaster can have a handful of chosen spell scrolls by 3rd level, either by purchasing them or scribing them personally. But AD&D1 spellcasters just got what they found.

The D&D3 characters are not leveling up appreciably faster than the AD&D1 characters. I suspect that what many people remember as very slow leveling in AD&D1 is a result of DMs not including as much treasure in their campaigns as the official adventures (and the rules as written) include (and assume). For instance, an official adventure might have 1,000xp worth of monsters and then 9,000gp as treasure (for a total 10,000xp). But an individual DM's adventure may have 1,000xp worth of monsters and only 2,000gp as treasure (for a total 3,000xp). Thus leveling was slowed greatly. But this is an effect of the DM, not the rules.

I remember doing this when I ran an AD&D1 game. It was not my intention to slow advancement, but thinking back on it now, that was a byproduct of my style.

Anyone else's experience support this?

Quasqueton

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Anyone else's experience support this?

My own DMing practice was to dish out 10% of the treasure value as XP, rather than a 1-to-1 equivalent. I may have dished out treasure less than 3e standard practice, but I don't think it was noticibly lower...

Very interesting experiment, I'm interested in seeing more results of the D&D3 vs. B/ED&D comparisons.

 

[Gentlegamer]

**It seems that Gygax and TSR based their "large party" assumption on their personal experiences (like EGG sometimes having upwards of 20 Players at his table at one time) and tournament gatherings (having 6-9 Players in a game) rather than on market sample information of actual home games (which reports say they had none).

You mean on actual first hand playtest experience. Gygax also had many sessions where only one high level character participated, but such a character was seldom alone. Henchmen, hirelings, and followers fill out the rest of the party number even if fewer players are there.

 

[T. Foster]

No henchmen in the 1E party soaking up XP and excess magic items? No characters having to eat excess XP because they stop gaining XP once they have enough to go up a level (this makes a big difference in the moathouse, where almost all of the characters will have to eat a huge chunk of XP after defeating Lareth and gaining his treasure)? No characters dying and having to restart at level 1? Are you decreasing the XP awards for overmatched encounters as instructed in the DMG? I've run T1-4 through from beginning to the end (or, rather, to the same place you did -- not including the Nodes or the sub-level) twice (and T1 alone several more times) and neither time were the characters anywhere near the levels you have shown at the end; they averaged about level 6 with only the thieves at level 7. Of course they didn't kill every single monster or recover every single piece of treasure, either...

 

[Odhanan]

Thanks Quasqueton. That's all very interesting data to look at.

 

[Hussar]

T. Foster - I would point out three things. Firstly, Quasqueton didn't include ANY xp for selling magic items. Any lost xp would be more than made up by this. How much is a crystal ball worth for example? Secondly, he also didn't include the 10% bonus for high stats - something which at least some of the PC's may have had. Thirdly, since the kill xp is SO COMPLETELY overshadowed by gold xp, that any adjustment there would be meaningless.

I mean, look at the totals by the end of Dungeon Level 4 - 450 k gp and total xp of 550 k. FOUR TIMES as much xp comes from gold as from kills. You could likely drop 50% of the kill xp and it would make no difference.

 

[T. Foster]

T. Foster - I would point out three things. Firstly, Quasqueton didn't include ANY xp for selling magic items. Any lost xp would be more than made up by this. How much is a crystal ball worth for example?

Granted, but note that in order to get XP for selling a magic item you must do so immediately -- if you use for awhile and then sell it later you don't get any XP for the gold (you get XP for the item, which I'm pretty sure was included in the calculations). Also, I think you and Quasqueton are both seriously underestimating the amount of XP a party of 1E characters will eat in the Moathouse. When they encounter Lareth the Beautiful a party is likely to all still be 1st level (with perhaps only a thief having gained enough XP for 2nd level -- but even so he might not have enough gold to pay the training costs and therefore may be "stuck" at 1st level, despite technically having enough XP for 2nd); upon defeating Lareth they'll get a ton of gold and XP, enough, as Q's calculations show, to theoretically get them to 3rd-4th level, but they'll have to eat the majority of it and only increase to 2nd level (possibly 3rd for the thief). I've run this module at least 5 separate times and it's always turned out this way. I've never seen a party achieve 3rd-4th level characters by clearing the Moathouse -- because so much of the treasure/xp is concentrated in a single encounter I don't think it's even possible.

Secondly, he also didn't include the 10% bonus for high stats - something which at least some of the PC's may have had.

True, but with 1E's geometric XP progression at low levels that 10% bonus doesn't make all that big a difference, level-wise -- Q noted the spots where including the 10% bonus would've pushed a character to the next higher level.

Thirdly, since the kill xp is SO COMPLETELY overshadowed by gold xp, that any adjustment there would be meaningless.

I mean, look at the totals by the end of Dungeon Level 4 - 450 k gp and total xp of 550 k. FOUR TIMES as much xp comes from gold as from kills. You could likely drop 50% of the kill xp and it would make no difference.

The proportional difficulty adjustments apply to treasure XP as well as monster XP. I agree, though, that this isn't likely to make as much difference as "wasted" XP at leveling up (especially in T1), henchmen serving as XP sinks (they count as a full character for purposes of dividing XP, but they only get half the XP and the rest is "lost"), and characters dying and being replaced by new characters with 0 XP.

I'm not bringing this up to try to denigrate Q's effort in doing these calculations, and I agree that they're very interesting, I'm just pointing out that because of all these complicating factors I don't think totalling up the XP value of all the monsters in the module, totaling up the XP value of all the treasure in the module, dividing by the number of characters, and comparing the result to the XP charts is likely to provide an accurate "real world" feel for where a party will be XP/level-wise be at the end of a 1E module. I've tried doing this (with my own home-brew adventures, mostly) and I know that in practice it doesn't work. That Q's calculations place a party at 3rd-4th level at the end of T1 and 8th-10th level and the "end" of T1-4 when my actual play experience from multiple runs of both places them at more like 2nd-3rd and 5th-7th* respectively supports this contention.

*the module says it will take characters from level 1-8, but that assumes the party will at least explore the Elemental Nodes and possibly confront Zuggtmoy as well, whereas both times I've run it (and in Q's calculation) we stopped after Dungeon Level 4, which explains why my results lag behind what the module itself promises.

 

[The Shaman]

Post deleted...I'm not going to waste my time with this any more than I already have.

 

[Numion]

The proportional difficulty adjustments apply to treasure XP as well as monster XP. I agree, though, that this isn't likely to make as much difference as "wasted" XP at leveling up (especially in T1), henchmen serving as XP sinks (they count as a full character for purposes of dividing XP, but they only get half the XP and the rest is "lost"), and characters dying and being replaced by new characters with 0 XP.

We never had henchmen in our AD&D game. I don't remember the reason, but even what you posted would've been reason enough.

 

[Quasqueton]

I don’t want to argue personal experiences, but I do want to address some of the factual issues brought up.

Granted, but note that in order to get XP for selling a magic item you must do so immediately

That must have been your house rule.

"Any magic item not identified brought no experience to the one possessing it. Once it was IDed and usable, then it could be sold or retained and the XPs awarded accordingly." -- E. Gary Gygax

(you get XP for the item, which I'm pretty sure was included in the calculations)

No xp from magic items, at all, was included in the data calculations. Notice the note, “not including the xp value of using or selling magic items” after every xp award listing.

The proportional difficulty adjustments apply to treasure XP as well as monster XP.

To use this rule (which in my personal experience, as a DM and a Player, was never used), the DM must add up all the hit dice of every enemy defeated in the adventure, divide by the number of creatures to get the average HD level. Then divide this number by the average level of the adventurers involved in the adventure. If you get a fraction less than 1, that is the fraction of xp the adventurers get; if the fraction is greater than 1, the adventurers get full normal xp. (It is my understanding that this rule only applies to monster xp, not to gp xp.) That’s a heck of a lot of calculations for a DM to figure, just to award xp at the end of a game session. I have never known a DM to do this, and it is not something that I can easily do for this data.

Any xp that might be lost through this “proportional difficulty adjustment” can be more than made up for by adding in the magic item xp (for using or for selling). A +1 sword (for example) is worth 400 xp to the character using it, or it can be sold for 2,000 gp which would be translated to 2,000 xp for the whole party.

So, for example, the Moathouse magic treasure is worth 9,600 xp if used (more than the total monster xp), or 33,800 gp/xp if sold (over 4 times the total monster xp). Selling the items increases the xp award from 38,148 xp to 71,948 xp.

The Dungeon Level 1 (ToEE) magic treasure is worth 12,610 xp if used (559 xp short of the total monster xp), or 76,400 gp/xp if sold (almost 6 times the total monster xp). Selling the items increases the xp award from 42,855 xp to 119,255 xp!

[If it is necessary for me to add up the “proportional difficulty adjustment” and add in the magic item xp (for use or sell), I will do so, for absolute completeness. But having looked at the data and the rules, I guarantee you that the AD&D1 party will get more xp from the extra calculations. I believe and would bet that the AD&D1 party would actually gain a level (if not more than one).]


The Temple of Elemental Evil adventure stated that it will/can take adventurers from 1st to 8th level, and this it does. The elemental nodes and killing Zuggtmoy is superfluous, and the module says as much.

Again, I don’t mean to challenge anyone’s personal experiences. I’m only presenting data straight from the adventure books, according to the rule books. A group’s and a DM’s play style can alter the game results, for both good and bad, for faster advancement and slower, for more treasure and for less. But I can’t measure play style, I can only present the data as it appears and runs straight out of the books.

Quasqueton