AD&D 1E XP Value for Monsters?

[ilgatto]

@ilgatto : Generally speaking, "motionless" and "helpless" are not the same thing in D&D. Or at least, the 3e designers who were trying much as you are to bring forward and codify the 1e rules (but with the intention of bringing them into a more modern framework) had that distinction. In game terms "motionless" has to do with being unable to take most actions, but "helplessness" has to do with being unable to resist attacks in anyway. Most of the time something that is "motionless" is also "helpless" as with sleeping or paralyzation, but not always. For example, someone being violently ill in 3e "actionless" but not "helpless", in that they can take no meaningful actions but you can't outright just slay them because they are still aware and can still wiggle a bit to defend themselves. You might have a major advantage in attacking them, but you have to declare you are attacking them and not just declare you kill them ("coup de grace" action in 3e terms).

Interesting. Also: Heh, so it's exactly the other way round!

So yes, something that "just" renders you stunned is not nearly as bad as something that renders you paralyzed. The former is at a big disadvantage, but the later can be killed at the rate of 1 per round by any foe. Stunning something is always probably worth at least an SAXPB (IMO) but paralyzing something (or equivalent) is (IMO) always probably worth an EAXPA since its in many cases nearly as lethal as a death effect.

Blinding Spittle: SAXPB either because it is ranged or the effect is similar to stunning.
Disease (fatal after days/weeks/months): If no special condition prevents removal and its not explicitly debilitating immediately, the SAXPB. If on the other hand, if a certain level caster or high level spell like break enchantment or special ingredient is required to cure, or its lethal in days, or its immediately debilitating, and particularly if its any two of these things (like lycanthropy) then probably an EAXPA.
Squirt Acid: SAXPB because it's a ranged attack. EAXPA if the maximum damage is high enough to either in combination with other attacks or on its own cross a inflict more damage than usual threshold.
Minor Breath Weapon: Generally an SAXPB because it's a ranged attack and can potentially threaten multiple foes (similar logic as "having 4 or more attacks).
8' jump: Neither an SAXPB nor an EAXPA. This is a defensive or attacking advantage too small to qualify as either (equivalent to natural climbing speed or natural swimming speed). Could be an SAXPB if it explicitly grants some other important advantage (like double damage on an attack, such as the Aarakocra dive attack). In general, wouldn't consider something like +1 to hit if it jumps to attack a significant or important advantage.
Charge: Covered above. It's an SAXPB if the advantage is significant, and an EAXPA if it allows for attacks that inflict above a damage threshold.
Trample: Ditto, except its usually always an SAXPB because it hits multiple foes.
Rending: As charge, but usually always at least an SAXPB because doing additional damage is signficant.
Rear Claws: As charge, but usually always at least an SAXPB because taking additional attacks or doing additional damage is significant.
Stampede: As trample. Applies to each creature slain, as 1e AD&D has no notion of a "swarm". Most things with stampede will also have trample, so don't double count.
Drag Into Water: Note a SAXPB or EAXPA unless it explicitly causes some immediate effect like immediately drowning. If the PC can reasonably hold their breath for some duration, this is just a grab or grapple attack. If the PC's lungs explicitly immediately fill up with water or the PC is explicitly held motionless, this an EAXPA as a death attack. In the case of the water weird, I don't think either is true.
Rotting Poison: Treat like disease. If it's very rapid, it's an EAXPA. It's its rather slow and allows time to cure, it's probably an SAXPB but see long duration disease above.
Hold Person: It's either major spell use or paralyzation. In either case, it's an SAXPB.
Catalepsy: If it stuns (puts at a disadvantage) it's an SAXPB. If it paralyzes (renders you completely motionless or unaware) it's an EAXPA.
Unconsciousness: An EAXPA.
Pain Poison: If it can only stun it's an SAXPB. If it paralyzes it's an EAXPA.
Sleep: Unless the monster explicitly only uses it defensively, it's an EAXPA.
Stunning: Generally a SAXPB. The test on a SAXPB is would it make you subject to the rule you can be slain outright in one round. Sleeping, held, unconscious, or paralyzed creatures can. Generally merely frightened, deafened, blinded, or stunned creatures cannot (though they are at great disadvantages, it's not immediately and automatically lethal).

I'm certainly leaning heavily in the direction of all of this, and much of the list of unknowns is there because I'm hoping this little project will dig up some info in the DMG/MM/PHB I wasn't aware of/had forgotten about, or which will put things in a different light.

That said, I think the charge should be an SAXPB in any case (though probably not exactly as per "my" definition above) and then be eclipsed by an EAXPA if it gets into lethal/massive damage territory (e.g., Titanothere).
Agreed that the bulette's jump isn't much of a charge-like effect, though I still think it should be worth an SAXPB because it allows the beast to attack four or more times in a round.

As to the dinosaurs: I guess allocating xp to each individual because herds of them can stampede is gonna be the only "BTB solution", even though dinos do not typically get SAXPB/EAXPAs for anything. Also, wild cattle and herd animals don't get any xp for stampeding herds. It's a bit of a conundrum.

 

[Lanefan]

So in short, if a paralysis-hold-stun-etc. effect renders* the victim completely unable to fight or defend it's an EAXPB but if it merely renders the victim less able to fight or defend it's an SAXPB. Duration irrelevant.

Seems a simple enough rule of thumb from here.

* - or potentially renders; the xp given should be the same regardless of whether the effect ever manifested or not.

 

[Celebrim]

So in short, if a paralysis-hold-stun-etc. effect renders* the victim completely unable to fight or defend it's an EAXPB but if it merely renders the victim less able to fight or defend it's an SAXPB. Duration irrelevant.

Seems a simple enough rule of thumb from here.

In general, yes. I could always imagine exceptions. If it's effectively permanent duration and hard to treat (a curse that is hard to break) that might be an EAXPB to me (-8 strength until you can find a 14th level caster to cast remove curse is "maimed to death"). But if it is merely long duration (10 minutes) and wide area effect (all within a 8" cone) then I'd tend to have this count as multiple SAXPB rather than an EAXPB. However, that would be rare and would be in those cases where an otherwise very powerful "stunning" power was found in a relatively low HD monster. A relatively high HD monster with a relatively powerful stunning ability already grants more XP for a SAXPB precisely because it's assumed high HD monsters will also have relatively powerful abilities. Like we'd generally expect the "Rend" attack of a higher HD monster to do more damage than a lower HD monster, so that it does is in line with the expectations of the XP system.

In a weird case where you had a monster with two claw attacks that each did 3d6 damage, and if it successfully hit with both it would rend or crush for an extra 1d6 damage, I'm not even sure I'd count that as an SAXPB. It's trivial compared to the overall power of the monster. But a 2HD monster that has two claw attacks that each did 1d4 damage which if it hits for both does an extra 1d4 damage, to me that's a clear SAXPB because it's significant relative to the power of the monster, and if that rend did 3d6 damage that's maybe worth two SAXPB on a 2HD monster whereas it might be only one on a 12HD monster.

Again, my goal would be principally end up in a situation where a ranking of the XP award provided by the monster would also be a ranking of the danger of the monster.

 

[ilgatto]

So in short, if a paralysis-hold-stun-etc. effect renders* the victim completely unable to fight or defend it's an EAXPB but if it merely renders the victim less able to fight or defend it's an SAXPB. Duration irrelevant.

Seems a simple enough rule of thumb from here.

* - or potentially renders; the xp given should be the same regardless of whether the effect ever manifested or not.

Agreed. It's certainly what I would do. But I'm afraid I'm gonna have to take a back seat until I find out what they were thinking when they made Appendix E.

If ever.

 

[ilgatto]

In general, yes. I could always imagine exceptions. If it's effectively permanent duration and hard to treat (a curse that is hard to break) that might be an SAXPB to me (-8 strength until you can find a 14th level caster to cast remove curse is "maimed to death"). But if it is merely long duration (10 minutes) and wide area effect (all within a 8" cone) then I'd tend to have this count as multiple SAXPB rather than an EAXPB. However, that would be rare and would be in those cases where an otherwise very powerful "stunning" power was found in a relatively low HD monster. A relatively high HD monster with a relatively powerful stunning ability already grants more XP for a SAXPB precisely because it's assumed high HD monsters will also have relatively powerful abilities. Like we'd generally expect the "Rend" attack of a higher HD monster to do more damage than a lower HD monster, so that it does is in line with the expectations of the XP system.

In a weird case where you had a monster with two claw attacks that each did 3d6 damage, and if it successfully hit with both it would rend or crush for an extra 1d6 damage, I'm not even sure I'd count that as an SAXPB. It's trivial compared to the overall power of the monster. But a 2HD monster that has two claw attacks that each did 1d4 damage which if it hits for both does an extra 1d4 damage, to me that's a clear SAXPB because it's significant relative to the power of the monster, and if that rend did 3d6 damage that's maybe worth two SAXPB on a 2HD monster whereas it might be only one on a 12HD monster.

Again, my goal would be principally end up in a situation where a ranking of the XP award provided by the monster would also be a ranking of the danger of the monster.

Yeah. And there you're probably touching on the very reason why Appendix E is so incomprehensible (like I believe you did earlier): the notion that there is a relativity to it all, that one monster will get an SAXPB/EAXPA for one thing when another just doesn't.
And so I guess the big question is: was all of that done "seat-of-the-pants arbitrary"? Or was there some sort of "solid" formula for that? Possibly based on the "monster levels" or else buried somewhere deep in OD&D?

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah. And there you're probably touching on the very reason why Appendix E is so incomprehensible (like I believe you did earlier): the notion that there is a relativity to it all, that one monster will get an SAXPB/EAXPA for one thing when another just doesn't.
And so I guess the big question is: was all of that done "seat-of-the-pants arbitrary"? Or was there some sort of "solid" formula for that? Possibly based on the "monster levels" or else buried somewhere deep in OD&D?

Well, at some level it is always seat of the pants arbitrary. There is always going to be some subjectiveness to it when you allow designers to free form any sort of design that they can imagine. There is no way to give firm guidelines to infinite variety.

But there is still value I think to what you are doing, and I think that value comes up when you look at otherwise successful game systems that where I think were destroyed by a failure to do what you are doing here and giving highly easy to understand guidelines that other designers could use to come reasonably close to what you as lead designer would have done themselves. (Particularly if you had a lot of clear examples without mistakes or lack of explanation.)

Gygax for his part was basically the sole designer of AD&D at this point. And it sort of worked for the TSR early days. As TSR grew the lack of design guidelines would get to be worse and worse of a problem, not just with XP or what not, but in general. But the situation that I think is most relevant is WEG's Star Wars D6 system where as best as I can tell content creation was farmed out to different writers with zero mechanical guidelines and no editorial oversight. The result is that the system as a whole is completely incoherent with respect to creatures, equipment, vehicles and so forth because every designer adhered only to their own ideas and intuition with no input from any other designer that I can and so none of the numbers work together in any fashion. In the case of for example Powered Armor, three different designers each came up with their own completely different ways of modelling it using three completely different minigames. And WEG published all three of them with no editorial oversight. That's a vastly worse situation than exists in Appendix E where Gygax didn't "show his work" when he assigned all the numbers (sometimes making errors even in his own calculations).

 

[ilgatto]

You know, I've always wondered whether Gygax actually was the sole author of the DMG. As far as I can see, he was rather good at putting his name on things and he may have been a good editor--or at least someone who ruled what he published with an iron hand--but I do believe that, for example, Lenard Lakofka also played a fairly big part in the end result that was the DMG. I forget where, but there's some evidence that this is the case. Could be some articles in Dragonsfoot magazine (is it called that?), and then there's his dippy zine Dangerous Liaisons and the firelord (or whatever that class was called) laying the groundwork for many fire-based spells that became a staple in AD&D.
Also, I've always wondered why the first OD&D booklets are so horrendous and incomprehensible in many ways, and the DMG/PHB present a much more coherent image. Was that because he made the OD&D booklets in his cellar and that he was only allowed to get some serious work done when TSR had actually become a thing?
Or did he have an editorial staff he could delegate things to at that time? If anything, do the bizarre inconsistencies between the xp table on p. 85 of the DMG and Appendix E suggest that they were made by two different people altogether?

Edit: That's Footprints and Liaisons Dangereuses.

 

[Lanefan]

You know, I've always wondered whether Gygax actually was the sole author of the DMG. As far as I can see, he was rather good at putting his name on things and he may have been a good editor--or at least someone who ruled what he published with an iron hand--but I do believe that, for example, Lenard Lakofka also played a fairly big part in the end result that was the DMG. I forget where, but there's some evidence that this is the case. Could be some articles in Dragonsfoot magazine (is it called that?), and then there's his dippy zine Dangerous Liaisons and the firelord (or whatever that class was called) laying the groundwork for many fire-based spells that became a staple in AD&D.
Also, I've always wondered why the first OD&D booklets are so horrendous and incomprehensible in many ways, and the DMG/PHB present a much more coherent image. Was that because he made the OD&D booklets in his cellar and that he was only allowed to get some serious work done when TSR had actually become a thing?

Might be as simple as his gaining access to a proper word processor by 1978 as opposed to his manual typewriter.

Or did he have an editorial staff he could delegate things to at that time? If anything, do the bizarre inconsistencies between the xp table on p. 85 of the DMG and Appendix E suggest that they were made by two different people altogether?

I suspect the page-85 table is a late add-on to allow DMs a means of working out xp values for their homebrew monsters, without regard for what Appendix E has to say.

Or, flip side, maybe the table came first; then when he did Appendix E he was in fact also modifying the table as he went along only those mods never made it into the published DMG. Who knows?

In either case, I know if a monster has an xp value given in Appendix E I use that in preference to the table, if only for reasons of lazy.

For me, the biggest xp-calculation headaches are and always have been when the foes are also adventurers or PC-like characters; and the table doesn't go into enough detail to cover those.

 

[ilgatto]

Might be as simple as his gaining access to a proper word processor by 1978 as opposed to his manual typewriter.

True.

I suspect the page-85 table is a late add-on to allow DMs a means of working out xp values for their homebrew monsters, without regard for what Appendix E has to say.

Or, flip side, maybe the table came first; then when he did Appendix E he was in fact also modifying the table as he went along only those mods never made it into the published DMG. Who knows?

Heh. Or a combination of all of the above.

In either case, I know if a monster has an xp value given in Appendix E I use that in preference to the table, if only for reasons of lazy.

Same here.

For me, the biggest xp-calculation headaches are and always have been when the foes are also adventurers or PC-like characters; and the table doesn't go into enough detail to cover those.

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?

And that is only the beginning. For what to make of the locathah leader, which has “18 hit points (treat as a 4th level fighter)”, and its “4 assistants with 14 hit points (treat as 3rd level fighters)”?

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”, and “1+1(+)” for the hit dice of the ixitxachitls in general in Appendix E, and then a footnote saying “This is for those without extra hit dice or spell use; adjust the numbers accordingly for such monsters”.
Sure!
But adjust bloody how?
Triple normal hit dice for a “guard with 6th-level clerical spell ability”? Why not 6 hit dice like a hill dwarf lieutenant has 4 hit dice? Or, possibly, 6+1 hit dice like a mountain dwarf lieutenant?

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?
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”.

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—”

—and round and round we go.

Mind = blown.
And then I haven't even mentioned the ogre mage chieftain with its "5 + 2 + 2 die". Nor, obviously, the lich.

 

[Celebrim]

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?

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. I more than make up for that THAC0 difference by post UA assuming all fighter classed NPCs are specialized or even double specialized in the weapon they are holding, but pre-UA I think the intention was that to use fighter tables for classed monsters in the monster manual because pre-UA didn't have as much power creep.

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.

And that is only the beginning. For what to make of the locathah leader, which has “18 hit points (treat as a 4th level fighter)”, and its “4 assistants with 14 hit points (treat as 3rd level fighters)”?

4+1 HD from the Locanth Leader with the powers and abilities of 4th level fighter and 3+1 HD for the assistants with the powers and abilities of 3rd level fighters. I think this is pretty straight foward and literal - "treat as a 4th level fighter".

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

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.

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?
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”.

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.

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.

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. This yields 3 HD + 3 (from d10s per HD) + 3 (from +1 hp per HD from CON bonus). I'm a bit surprised leaders have 4+7 instead of 4+8 but whatever.

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?

I think you are looking for consistency that was just never intended. 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. Young sveifnebli would be 1st or 2nd level fighters probably with 1+2 and 2+4 HD IMO, but that's just pure speculation. And it doesn't really matter, because you don't have to write out examples for them because they are speculative and when you did you could make the rules whatever you wanted.