AD&D 1E XP Value for Monsters?

[SableWyvern]

I'm rather looking for the "official rulings"...

I thought you said this was for 1e AD&D?

 

[ilgatto]

I thought you said this was for 1e AD&D?

In my defense, I was quoting Gygax!

 

[ilgatto]

-has been reading the Dragonsfoot files-

Oh dear.

Seem to have dug myself into a very, very deep hole there. Still, having a good--and much needed--ROFLMAO (2 SAXPBs for the dolphin!; and the mule takes the cake, so far) with "dismembering the monster manual" (by Algolei). Does lift the horrible brain fog and depression resulting from working through Appendix E.

Looks like one thing is becoming very clear: trying to "work down from" the xp value given in Appendix E is a lost cause in many cases, especially for many of the high-HD monsters. One of the biggest problems may well be that the "If an otherwise weak creature has an extraordinary power, multiply the award by 2, 4, 8, or even 10 or more." rule seems to have been applied over and over again, even in monsters that have varying hit dice.

Somewhere in the DMG (I think) there's a stray note suggesting that each extra class a creature has beyond the first effectively adds a hit die.

Looking that up!

Thus, your C/A 7/7 would start as a 7+1 to 8 (because of the Cleric class) then add a die for the Assassin class which puts it as 8+1 to 9.

From there add hp, SA, and EA bonuses as normal; of which a C/A would have a fair number due to class abilities and being a Kuo-Toa might give one or two more for racial abilities.

Plus one on each of those categories for the second class, but yes, I think you're otherwise correct here. It matches how I do it, in any case.

I think it's trying to refer to all levelled creatures. Emphasis on "I think", because with ol' Gygax one can never quite be sure.

One general note: there's almost always going to be a certain degree of DM latitude involved, no matter what you do.

Absolutely. Just try and calculate the xp for a band of 100+ hobgoblins and their leaders, some of which will have missile weapons and others won't -- not to mention witch doctors (DMG, p. 40), which is a wholly different headache.

I'm not sure any of this is all that relevant to xp calculation, and only serves to make a sometimes-complex calculation even more so. The only place saving throws or resistance would matter for xp purposes would be if a creature has unusual resistance to something (SA) or total immunity to something (EA).

Heh. And to think that "special saving throws" and "immunities" and "resistances" (other than "magic resistance") aren't even in the SAXPB/EAXPA list in the DMG...

EDIT: added the mule--because it's magnificent!

 

[sevenbastard]

I just gave up when I was running 1e and used the XP totals for a monster they assigned in 2e. Modules for 2e sometimes have xp values for NPCs so I would crib those for a 5th level wizard or something.

I know that doesn't help, but I didn't have the patience to math everything out and took the cowards path.

 

[Celebrim]

@ilgatto: I think it is a mistake to think that there is one true and correct way to play 1e AD&D. It's best to think of the rulebooks as the somewhat disordered house rules of a very influential DM whose campaign and rules was always evolving based on theory crafting and play experience and yours should be doing the same thing.

I do love the 1e AD&D XP system but it certainly could use more systemization if you want to get a more fair reward for each monster. It's also worth noting that as written it breaks down at monster level X. It doesn't take much effort to realize that some monsters that are monster level X are worth a whole lot more XP than others and are much more challenging than others.

I would recommend both the rules for for very high HD monsters from Gygax's "Isle of the Ape" and adopting some sort of break down on XP ranges for monsters that are above level X.

For an example of applying the 1e AD&D XP rules in a more consistent way and assigning categories to monsters at above level X, see this thread: AD&D 1E - Revised and rebalanced dragons for 1e AD&D

 

[Celebrim]

Then, when I got way down into the table I'm cooking up, I ran into the kuo-toans, and that got me thinking. For here, on p. 58 of the Fiend Folio (and p. 14 of D2), there is a table that says that "The number of hit dice possessed by this hardy race is not indicative of their possible variation in hits, since their breeding gives them exactly the same number of hit points per die, varying by level:", followed by how many hit points a male or female kuo-toan has per hit die.

So, what does that mean? What does that mean for a kuo-toan monitor (C7 or C/A 7/7) or priest-king (C/A 12/12)? How many hit point does each have? Does a male monitor have 56 hp and a priest-king 120 hp? It would seem so, wouldn't it, coz there's nothing on hit dice or hit points for multi-classed kuo-toans.

If so, this would actually mean that a monitor "counts as a 7-hit-die monster" regardless of whether he/she is C7 or C/A 7/7, and that a priest-king "counts as a 12-hit-die monster."

So in a nutshell, "Yes". Multiclassing in AD&D is not additive with HD. Your HD is the same as your highest class level. You don't acquire more HD by multiclassing, just more abilities. So your assumption about the priest king counting as a 12 HD monster would be correct, though you'd still award the extra XP for each hit point. Kuo-toa is the longest and most complex monster write up in the game and there is a huge list of minor defensive abilities that they get. I am not terribly surprised that this is the one that has you stumped.

The asterisk in the heading "Experience Level or Monster's Hit Dice*" in that table refers to the first footnote, which says: "*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."

So the question is: does that footnote apply to monsters? I mean, kuo-toan monitors and priest-kings do have "levels", don't they? And the table is under the heading "Experience Points Value of Monsters".

So does that mean that a kuo-toan C/A 7/7 monitor falls into the "7+1 to 8" category for determining xp? And that a priest-king stays in the "11 to 12+" category?

Again, I would tend to think "Yes". The rule probably should apply to any monster whose HD appears to be tied to class levels though not for example to something like an Arcanodaemon whose casting ability and HD aren't really correlated.

I wouldn't get bogged down in the weeds about whether to base things off saving throws or attack rating. HD is the main thing to look at, and that the tables don't perfectly line up in their break points isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. That dragons get improved saving throws in the RAW based on hit points if they are older (for example an ancient red 10HD dragon saves as a 17th level fighter IIRC) shouldn't be used to argue that they qualify as 17HD monsters for XP on the basis of saving throws, but rather that they get a minor defensive special ability (better saves) that should increase the XP award of a 10 HD monster that qualifies for a better save.

 

[ilgatto]

@ilgatto: I think it is a mistake to think that there is one true and correct way to play 1e AD&D. It's best to think of the rulebooks as the somewhat disordered house rules of a very influential DM whose campaign and rules was always evolving based on theory crafting and play experience and yours should be doing the same thing.

I do love the 1e AD&D XP system but it certainly could use more systemization if you want to get a more fair reward for each monster. It's also worth noting that as written it breaks down at monster level X. It doesn't take much effort to realize that some monsters that are monster level X are worth a whole lot more XP than others and are much more challenging than others.

I would recommend both the rules for for very high HD monsters from Gygax's "Isle of the Ape" and adopting some sort of break down on XP ranges for monsters that are above level X.

For an example of applying the 1e AD&D XP rules in a more consistent way and assigning categories to monsters at above level X, see this thread: AD&D 1E - Revised and rebalanced dragons for 1e AD&D

Yup. I realize that there's no one true and correct way to play 1E--something my little xp project has made very, very clear once again! I mean, there's just no way in hell you're gonna "correctly" calculate the xp for a koalinth lair allied with ixitxachitl and under siege by sahuagin (hmm... there's a strange 'Blackmoor pattern' here...). And there's ways around that, of course, as I've been using. So no worries there.

Point is, I'm trying to solve "a few small problems" that have always bugged me about the xp system--and "finally find out" what in blazes the someone/someones who made Appendix E were thinking at the time. Call it an interest in the history of the game--or obsessive compulsive table-making.

But thanks for the ref to WG6! Never knew there was rules for very high HD monsters in it, so I'll definitely have a look.

Oh! Impressive work in the link!

 

[ilgatto]

I wouldn't get bogged down in the weeds about whether to base things off saving throws or attack rating. HD is the main thing to look at, and that the tables don't perfectly line up in their break points isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. That dragons get improved saving throws in the RAW based on hit points if they are older (for example an ancient red 10HD dragon saves as a 17th level fighter IIRC) shouldn't be used to argue that they qualify as 17HD monsters for the purpose of saving throws, but rather that they get a minor defensive special ability (better saves) that should increase the XP award of a 10 HD monster that qualifies for a better save.

Absolutely! The fact that Lakofka said what he said about the "saving throw" thing wasn't my cup of tea at all. In fact, I quoted him because his "This pattern, however, does not properly reflect that a monster's "to hit" probabilities change between 4+3 and 4+4" set me on the path to thinking that maybe, just maybe, the xp for monsters were influenced--perhaps originally even based on--by how easy they could hit the PCs, which would make some sense. But then the type IV demon in Appendix E came along with its THAC0 8 and its MM special ability "bonus of +2 to hit" and, well... rather spoiled things in that regard.
Of course, that mess could have come from the fact that it had d10s for hit dice in OD&D, and that some things got lost/complicated in translating that to AD&D.
(The same may have been true for the type V demon, but that's another story altogether.)

 

[Mannahnin]

On that note, I seem to recall that "hit dice" was originally meant to represent something like "the category that determines what a monster can hit with what die-roll", which would make sense in this light.

Random note: the terminology originates in Chainmail, where it denotes the actual (six sided) dice each unit rolls when attacking, though it varied based on what type of unit was attacking what type of unit, and was often fractional.

For example, Light Foot attack as follows:
vs other Light Foot: roll one die per attacker, each 6 kills/incapacitates a defender.
vs. Heavy Foot: one die per two attackers, 6s kill.
vs. Armored Foot: one die per three attackers, 6s kill.
vs. Light Horse: one die per two attackers, 6s kill.
vs. Med Horse: one die per three attackers, 6s kill.
vs. Heavy Horse: one die per four attackers, 6s kill.

Whereas Heavy Horse attack as follows:
vs Light Foot: roll four dice per attacker, each 5 or 6 kills a defender.
vs. Heavy Foot: three dice per attacker, 5s & 6s kill.
vs. Armored Foot: two dice per attacker, 5s & 6s kill.
vs. Light Horse: two dice per attacker, 5s & 6s kill.
vs. Med Horse: one die per attacker, 5s & 6s kill.
vs. Heavy Horse: one die per attacker, 6s kill.

"+" values were much more meaningful in Chainmail as well, because if you had, say, 3+1 HD, it meant that you rolled three attack dice and could add 1 to any one of them to push it over the threshold of scoring a kill. So if you had three hit dice + 1, were attacking a target you needed 5s or 6s to kill, and rolled a 2, 4, and 6, you could push that 4 up to a 5 and score two kills. One of the areas where translating from Chainmail to D&D got funky is in translating bonuses and penalties like the -1 to hit (on all your six sided hit dice!) Orcs and Goblins, and Wights/Ghouls were supposed to get in daylight, which is massively more impactful than -1 on a d20.

Monster stats in Chainmail are given in troop-equivalents, so, for example, Wights/Ghouls (same entry) despite being infantry attack as Light Horse and defend as Heavy Horse. A Troll/Ogre (same entry) attack and defend as six Heavy Foot, and only die once they've accumulated 6 total hits against them, although Elves can kill them with three hits, and a Hero with magic weapon can kill them with a single hit.

 

[Celebrim]

Point is, I'm trying to solve "a few small problems" that have always bugged me about the xp system--and "finally find out" what in blazes the someone/someones who made Appendix E were thinking at the time. Call it an interest in the history of the game--or obsessive compulsive table-making.

Been there, did that. Should have printed out the t-shirt.

I had at one time hand-written notes for redoing many of the games monster entries to bring everything up to the MM2 standard and my own house rules. This included big updates to two things correcting XP entries and correcting/improving how AC was recorded in the MM. I had started using the "To Weapon vs. AC" tables in the Unearthed Arcana (with some minor tweaks, like making axes a bit heavier hitting just to bring some variety) and the problem was I wanted to extend this to all monsters. The entries and rules seemed to imply that monsters had armor equivalent to humanoid armor, but with the same modifiers for dexterity or magic or whatever. So I set about separating the AC of all monsters into two numbers, actual "Armor Class" (like '5' equivalent to chainmail) and the monsters "Armor Bonus" the adjustment to the AC up or down. This would be written as like 5(+2) or 2(-2) or whatever. AC 5(+2) differed from AC 3 in that you used a different column in the "Weapon vs. AC" table. I soon noticed that functionally this was giving me Dexterity values, which I also adopted because I wanted more monsters with bonuses to initiative owing to the fact that if the party on average tended to go first the fight was a rout and generally over before the monster could really react.

I handled all this extra complexity by making "to hit" tables for each player character for each weapon they commonly used. The result of this was my game actually sped up, because they could just report the number they rolled unmodified and the math was built into the table - no more losing 3-5 seconds each attack adding the fiddly bits.

It worked great but this was also roughly the era where I was so frustrated with the things that weren't working that the triumph in the few areas that were didn't prevent me from leaving the system.