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

[kaomera]

First of all: Wow, Quasqueton, quite an undertaking. I am impressed, and this is very thought-provoking...

I can't say that I'm incredibly surprised by the results. IMHO, AD&D "tops out" at a lot lower level than 3.x; specifically "name level" (10 to 14) tended to be the end-game, rather than approaching Epic (16-20).

Having said that (and aside from the real point of this topic, I know) I'd like to say that there are some very significant (IMHO) differences in AD&D / 3.x that don't show up directly in the numbers. First of all, 3.x tends to be more standardized. There are specific expectations built into the game as far as how many encounters are needed to level and PC wealth / magic item levels. A core-rules magic-item creation system is one of the big ones, you just didn't see many non-retired / NPC Magic Users in AD&D making any kind of magic items. Also, between the XP caps on going up more than one level at a time and training requirements (both of which I saw used in maybe 80%+ of the AD&D games I was involved with, IIRC) and the fact that most published modules did not seem to assume that PCs would uncover every last bit of treasure and/or play through every last encounter, I think that there was a lot more room in AD&D for deviations from the norm. (Of course, given that, the norm is still just that...) And in both systems I did (and still do) prefer a larger group, 6 to 8 being optimal, but don't expect every player to show up for every session.

 

[Quasqueton]

Complication in treasure calculations

I'm working on another AD&D1 adventure module, and I've come to a complication in figuring gp values. Several treasure hoards in this adventure include unpriced gems and jewelry. For instance:

7,000 sp, 9,000 gp, 800 pp, 21 gems, 2 pieces of jewelry, 1 potion of . . .

To determine the gem and jewelry value, I have the charts on pages 25-26 in the AD&D1 DMG.

Gem base value chart summary:

01-25 = 10 gp base value
26-50 = 50 gp base value
51-70 = 100 gp
71-90 = 500 gp
91-99 = 1,000 gp
00 = 5,000 gp

This chart just gives the base value. A second chart determines if the gem in question is actually of higher or lower value than the base. (Interestingly, the odds are better that the value will increase than decrease.) But for this data collection, I'm just going to use the base value. Going further in the randomness is too complicated.

Jewelry base value chart summary:

01-10 = 100 - 1,000 gp base value
11-20 = 200 - 1,200 gp base value
21-40 = 300 - 1,800 gp
41-50 = 500 - 3,000 gp
51-70 = 1,000 - 6,000 gp
71-90 = 2,000 - 8,000 gp
91-00 = 2,000 - 12,000 gp

This chart, too, just gives the base value. After the base is determined, more rolls (a d10, a d8, and a d6) can increase (considerably) the value of the piece of jewelry (but never decrease). But, again, for this data collection, I'm just going to use the base value. Going further in the randomness is too complicated.

Now, I have a question for any and all probability gurus in the audience:

Looking at the two charts above, what would be the average value of a gem, and what would be the average value of a piece of jewelry?

Usually, I've been assuming an average roll for any random values -- say an item is said as "3 pieces of jewelry valued at 200 - 1,200 gp each", I'd use 700 gp each as the average. But when no value is given in the adventure text, the DMG charts are a bit more complicated.

I could just assume an average roll on the d% (51 or 55?), and then an average roll for the base value (3,500 for jewelry). This would mean all gems are worth 100 gp, and all jewelry are worth 3,500 gp. But would this be accurate?

Any math help would be appreciated.

Quasqueton

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Use a weighted average.

Gem chart: 275 gp.

Jewelry chart: weighted average of the mean value for each roll result, = 2910 gp.

Edit:

Just in case weighted averages need explaining, for the gems it is:

[(25 instances of 10 gp) + (25 x 50) + (20 x 100) + (20 x 500) + (9 x 1000) + (1 x 5000)] divided by 100 instances = 275 gp average.

 

[Slife]

I'll give them a weight based on their % chance of coming up, and average the jewelry's ranges.

For gems I get

(250 + 1250 + 2000 + 10000 +9000 + 5000)/100

= an average of 275 gp per gem.


For jewelry

Average values of range :
01-10 = 550
11-20 = 700
21-40 = 1050
41-50 = 1750
51-70 = 3500
71-90 = 5000
91-00 = 7000

(550+700+2100+1750+7000+10000+7000)/10

= 2910 gp average.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

One more difference that the treasure analysis makes me wonder about: how closely distributed is the treasure in published modules to the "treasure standard" as reflected by the treasure tables in the DMGs?

I know the 3E designers (at least early on) took great pains not only to make sure encounter levels were appropriately distributed, but also that the treasure provided was appropriate to the EL. On the other hand, I've never really felt that the treasure distribution in 1E modules followed any sort of rule, and I suspected it didn't abide by the treasure tables -- it always felt more individually placed. But I'm not sure that is fact.

So the question is: at the end of each adventure, would the characters have wealth appropriate for their level, and does the treasure placement hold with the treasure type assignments?

I expect the first question can be answered from the data at hand, but the second requires in-depth analysis of individual encounters and is probably too tough to do.

 

[00Machado]

If getting from 1st to 8th level took 40 game sessions, as I suggested above, (1 level per 5-6 game sessions), they could reach level 10 in about 52 game sessions, just as EGG said was proper in his mind/intention/experience.

The “release notes” from WotC on the reformulating of the D&D xp chart and rate, said that they wanted a group to be able to reach level 20 within 2 years. That would mean the group could reach level 10 in 1 year (52 weekly game sessions). (I’ve heard “2 years” and “18 months”, but I can’t find the information on the WotC Web site right now.)

I'm curious to know if this correlates to actual experience by those whove played the Paizo adventure paths. How long has it taken people to get through those? What was the frequency and duration of your play sessions?

 

[the Jester]

One more difference that the treasure analysis makes me wonder about: how closely distributed is the treasure in published modules to the "treasure standard" as reflected by the treasure tables in the DMGs?

.... >snip< ....

So the question is: at the end of each adventure, would the characters have wealth appropriate for their level, and does the treasure placement hold with the treasure type assignments?

I expect the first question can be answered from the data at hand, but the second requires in-depth analysis of individual encounters and is probably too tough to do.

Not necessarily! You could look for creatures that were supposed to have treasure types that were somewhat specialized, such as Q (gems only) or T (scrolls only)... and if the creatures with those treasure types had other types of treasure, then you know that in that instance it didn't follow the tables!

I've been running a 1e pickup game from time to time lately, and I've been using the treasure tables a lot. It's fun.

 

[SWBaxter]

I'm curious to know if this correlates to actual experience by those whove played the Paizo adventure paths. How long has it taken people to get through those? What was the frequency and duration of your play sessions?

Dunno about the adventure paths, but I found the pace was pretty accurate in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, which spans about 10 levels (4th to 14th or so) and took my group about a year to get through it (spread over two calendar years, we took breaks to play other stuff).

 

[xmanii]

Interesting read, thanks for doing this.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

One thing that I would like to throw out there is that the levels for the D&D3 party are rather appropriate given their environment. We see the party at 9th for the Steading, 11th for the Rift, and 13th for the Hall. I would say that this is even at the lower level of survivability for characters in this environment, translated to 3rd edition.

I ran a translation of the Steading for 15th level characters under 3.0. It was easy for them, but they still took a beating at the end. I guessed that after the fact a party at 12th level, again at 3.0e, would be the optimal starting level for a challenging game. It would be tough to run the Steading with a party of 9th level characters.

We went through Giants in a 3.0 game starting at 8th level with a ~8-9 PC party. We got butchered. The DM showed some mercy because the rate of losing XP from deaths was on average comparable to our rewards from victories, so he eased up on the death XP penalty and pushed us all up to 11th for G2.

I cannot brag about our performance in G1. The DM upped the difficulty slightly in a few ways. But I can say that a party of merely 6 9th level PCs can easily fail to complete this module. The combination of player mistakes being rewarded extremely swiftly with PC deaths at the hands of offense-heavy giants, and the fact you may get almost nothing in terms of monetary rewards until you secure the treasure trove means that the party may degrade in effectivenes as the module grinds on.

That campaign is on a back burner, but havign ground through about half the module, I can say 8 11th level PCs is about right for G2. 6 11th level PCs would have to play extremely smart play or they might fail outright, too.

The upgrading of the giants under 3e rules makes a huge difference.

Your average Hill Giant in 1e has 9d8 hit points and can theorectically be killed by a single lucky Fireball, certainly he will be dead or on death's door after 2 Fireballs. Your average 3.0 Hill Giant weighs in at ~100 HPs, and higher still in 3.5. Even with the harsher saving throws in 3e, the typical Hill Giant can survive 3 Fireballs (giants have enough HD that have a high likelihood that they will succeed in at least 1 of the 3 Reflex saving throws).

The bottom line is that a 3.0 Wizard (ab)using 3.0 Haste and tossing direct damage is not more effective overall than a 1e Wizard fighting 1e Hill Giants. Under 3.5 rules, direct damage is simply hopeless and you absolutely have to exploit other spell tactics.