AD&D 1E XP Value for Monsters?

[ilgatto]

There was a thread going around recently about "Did you play AD&D RAW?" and my answer was summarized as, "Well, we tried most of the time but generally there are enough different readings of the rules that two different groups could both claim to be RAW and yet use different rules."

So in my case, by a pretty short time after UA I was treating anything that could be a PC classed NPC as a PC classed NPC. So those Dwarves were just straight up fighters with d10's for HD and CON bonuses. And while that's all house rules, I do also think that the intention of raw is to give them XP as HD = <classlevel>+1 HD monsters and for them to use the THAC0 table for 4th level fighters not the one for 4HD monsters.

Yup, DMG, p. 85 says so, with: "*Treat peasants/levies as up to 1-1, men-at-arms as 1-1 to 1, and all levels as the n+1 hit dice category." But I've always taken that to mean that, say, a 4th-level fighter NPC should be treated as the "4+1 hit dice" category for xp purposes. If that is true, it doesn't really solve the problem of how many hit dice a mountain dwarf lieutenant has. But maybe I'm making a connection here that doesn't really matter in the end.
As to the THAC0 of (some) monsters with, say, a fighter class, the tables on p. 74 do suggest that they attack "as fighters".

Note that I only did this for races that could be taken by PCs under the RAW. I didn't do this for Goblins for example, even after I started having Goblin PCs. Goblins and other such things advanced as "monsters" and not fighters using their own progression and the monster "to hit" tables.

Yeah, I suppose that most DM's do this (as do I). There's even some evidence to support this notion, for DMG, p. 74 has: "Half-elves use the attack matrix as elves do, while non-player character half-orcs use the attack matrix for monsters."
I suppose this says something like "half-elves and elves are cool, and half-orcs are monsters."

This is a 4+4 HD monster with casting ability of an 8th level cleric, which in general I would not consider "major spell use" but "minor spell use" since the cleric spell list is largely defensive until about 9th level (at which point I would consider the cleric list "major spell use"). This is not a 6HD creature or there wouldn't be a distinction between HD and casting ability.

Same for the guards. They are 3+3 HD with casting ability of a 6th level cleric. The casting ability is a SAXPB and not a determiner of HD.

But that is exactly the main problem I'm facing, for it means that hit dice need not necessarily be tied to class abilities, which could have far-reaching consequences for the number of hit dice of other monsters with "class abilities", and therefore their xp values.
Still, both the ixitxachitl and the sahuagin, which are the main problem with inconsistent hit dice values, date back to the Blackmoor supplement, which probably explains a lot.

I'm not understanding the contradiction between these two things. A 3+3 HD creatures rolls three dice then adds +3 to the number rolled. Generally when I triple something I triple all the terms.

Well, the +x has consequences for saving throws, which may be a "special defense" thing. Also, I've been toying with the notion that THAC0 may have been a factor in determining xp, but that's me.

So here Gygax is probably just abstracting away two ideas. First that "average' svifnebli are 3rd level fighters, and second that average members of their species have 15 CON.

The Constitution bonus adding to hit dice is an interesting notion, but that doesn't explain why some monsters have huge pluses added to their hit dice. I've never really understood why these pluses exist in the first place, other than the notion that they have their basis in OD&D, where the number of hit dice a creature could have may have been limited to some number.

I think you are looking for consistency that was just never intended.

That is probably true. I'm just hoping that I can come to understand whether there is such a thing as "multiple consistencies", each with their origins and "run" in specific periods of the game, and all of which then ended up muddled in the Monster Manual and Appendix E.

I'd imagine in the rare case of a 0th level Svifnebli they'd have 1d6+1 hit points, but there isn't really anything that suggests Gygax ever used 0th level for anything but humans.

Could be that he never used them, but he did mention 0-level halflings in the heading of Table I.B. in the DMG (p. 74) for some weird reason, plus as part of the footnote: "Dwarves, elves and gnomes are never lower than 1st level (unlike halflings and humans, which may be of 0 level). Bards fight at their highest level of fighter experience."
Which is obviously a seriously annoying footnote because: "Dwarves, elves and gnomes are never lower than 1st level (...)"

 

[Lanefan]

True.


Heh. Or a combination of all of the above.


Same here.


Yeah, that’s a bit of a big one, too. Although one might suppose it is “fairly easily” solved for human NPCs (leader types of men, NPC parties)—which it actually isn’t because cavemen vs, say, berserker leader types vs, say, 10th-level dervish clerics—the real problems start with non-humans.

For how many hit dice does a mountain dwarf lieutenant (MM, p. 35, 36) have? The hill dwarf has 1 hit die, so I suppose the lieutenant has 4 hit dice as a 4th-level fighter. But the base mountain dwarf has 1+1 hit dice. So does that give the lieutenant 4 hit dice as a 4th-level fighter just like the hill dwarf? Or 4+1 hit dice as a 4th-level mountain dwarf fighter? And does said lieutenant have THAC0 18? If so, then why does a 4-hit-die monster “without a character class” have THAC0 15?

For NPCs like that I always convert them to having levels of Fighter, therefore the Lieutenants here would be 4th-level Fighters. In other words, I follow the 3e line of thinking - only I got there about 15 years before 3e came out.

And what of the “class abilities” vs the hit dice of the ixitxachitl leader types? MM, p. 55, has “a leader with 8th level clerical spell ability and quadruple normal hit dice, two guards with 6th level clerical spell ability and triple normal hit dice”,

The leader is an 8th level Cleric, the guards are 6th level Clerics, and I interpret "quadruple (or triple) normal hit dice" to simply mean "quadruple (or triple) normal hit points" because those things are bloody tough.

They still save like 8th (or 6th) level Clerics, though; though a case could be made through that awful wording that they're supposed to save lke 32 (or 24) hit-die creatures.

And if all the extra "hit dice" give are extra hit points, the xp table already accounts for those in the "xp per hit point" column.

And what, exactly, is “triple normal hit dice”? Is it 3+1 hit dice? Is it 3+3 hit dice? Do the sahuagins suggest the latter?

At first glance I'd say 3+3.

But then why does the glossary in the DMG (p. 228) say “Hit Dice – The number of dice rolled to determine the creature‘s hit points”? In my book, this means that one rolls one die to determine the hit dice of a standard ixitxachitl, and then adds +1 to the number rolled, for a grand total of “1 hit die, plus 1 hit point”.

Agreed. The problem with this definition as written is that it doesn't speak to how a creature's HD value also affects how well it fights, saves, and does other game-mechanical things.

And then there’s the svirfnebli, which fall into the category “monsters before the Fiend Folio was published”, and which, um… start as 3rd-level fighters with 3+6 hit dice? And then have “4th-level leaders” with 4+7 hit dice. Does that suggest that there’s “0-level svirfnebli” with 1+4 hit dice and that Gygax took it from there with the “classed” specimens? Meaning that a mountain dwarf lieutenant has 4+4 hit dice?
But then why does the glossary in the DMG (p. 228) say “Hit Dice—”

When only looking at hit points, the glossary maps perfectly here: the 4th-level leaders have 4d8+7 hit points each*. A commoner or 0th-level Svirfneblin has 1d8+4 hit points - they grow 'em tough down there.

* - unless I'm doing the rolling, of course; in which case they'd have 4d10 hit points because they're Fighters, plus whatever bonus their Con gives them if any.

—and round and round we go.

My headache isn't the non-kindred creatures. My headache comes when the party fight the following foes, let's say they're all Human, in a combat:

--- a specialized 6th-level Fighter wearing a girdle of giant strength and a ring of free action and wielding an aligned-evil sword that does double damage vs Good
--- a 5th-level Cleric/5th-level MU with a wide array of spells, a couple of blast wands, and a device of escape (e.g. teleport)
--- a 7th-level Assassin disguised as an archer, with a ring of invisibility, slippers of spider-climb, and lots of poison
--- a 6th-level Illusionist with no magic items to speak of but an excellent spell selection and who also rocks some psionics
--- a 4th-level Thief (the Assassin's hench) whose job is to act as distraction to set up the Assassin's kill strikes

These characters can silently communicate via telepathy courtesy of the psionic Illusionist, unless she's concentrating on casting a spell or maintaining an illusion - she can't do both at once. Also, the Assassin and Thief have worked out their own personal series of signs and signals so they can co-ordinate with each other.

How, in under half an hour, am I supposed to calculate the xp value of that lot? Also, I can't do it ahead of time as I've no way of knowing until the combat plays out whether the Cleric will be able to use his escape device if-when things go badly and if so, who if anyone he'll be able to take with him.

I've run combats like this before and whenever I try to calculate the xp using the table the resulting number always seems way too low.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a 4+4 HD monster with casting ability of an 8th level cleric, which in general I would not consider "major spell use" but "minor spell use" since the cleric spell list is largely defensive until about 9th level (at which point I would consider the cleric list "major spell use"). This is not a 6HD creature or there wouldn't be a distinction between HD and casting ability.

Anything at and over 3rd Cleric would be major spell use for me: Silence and Hold Person can change an entire combat; and at 5th level they get Prayer which is also huge (+1 might not seem like much but when your whole side gets it the effects add up fast!).