|
Post by Algolei on Apr 22, 2017 17:48:49 GMT
I've lost my way and am trying to remember what I used to know about this stuff....
DMG p.85 supposedly tells us how to calculate the XP for any given monster. Appendix E gives the XP awards, and generally it follows the system on p.85 (with several obvious errors, and a few less-than-obvious ones).
Then Dragon Magazine #80 has an article by Lenard Lakofka which gave a slightly different chart than the DMG had.
Are there any more published systems for calculating this stuff?
Here's why I'm asking: I've been trying to work out how the XP awards were generated in the Fiend Folio. Now as far as I understand it, the fellows working on the Fiend Folio were doing their best to stick to the system in the DMG, but occasionally I'll find an XP award that doesn't work -- for example, the mite and the svart [amongst others] are worth 5+1/hp even though they are 1-1 HD monsters and therefore should be worth 10+1/hp (it's as if the Fiend Folio folks had on hand a system whereby 1-1 HD monsters were worth a Base X.P. Value [BXPV] of 5 instead of 10). In other instances, some creatures with 5+1 to 6 HD are given an XP award of +7/hp when it should be +8/hp.
I'm trying to figure out what they had to work with.
|
|
|
Post by dragonspipe on May 6, 2017 2:01:26 GMT
I don't know of any other published systems for this within 1E; 2E *might* have a cleaned-up explanation that would probably work just fine in 1E.
Personally, I just use the MM as a guide, and make the numbers up.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2017 2:55:29 GMT
Algolei : cf. d80 && d108. Thanks for posting, and, making the effort to re-vise the XP values in the Fiend Folio. Johnny Blade
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on May 8, 2017 4:39:20 GMT
I've been trying to work out how the XP awards were generated in the Fiend Folio. It might have been issue with the rules the UK players were using. The Fiend Folio was based on Fiend Factory articles form White Dwarf magazine, with them being staff and fan submissions. Some of the fans might have been working from the Basic booklet, or the UK DMG might have listed the XP chart wrong so that everything was down-shifted. I have seen edition errors were one sight typo changed EVERYTHING in the editions that came afterwards. The based example is with Dwarves and Halflings saving throws were listed. The Men & Magic booklet of OD&D states that Dwarves and Hobbits Halflings had an up-shift with all of their saving throws so that they save as a Fighting-Man Fighter four levels higher than normal, and the saving throws listed in both the Holmes and Moldvay Basic booklets matched-up with that rule. Than Cook and Marsh listed Dwarves and Halflings as having saving throws eight levels higher that normal, and that effected ALL OTHER Basic/Expert-based rulebooks to come and the error was never spotted or corrected. Without the UK version of the rules, I have no idea if it was a math error with the submitted content, or if it was a systematic error with the books available to them.
|
|
|
Post by Algolei on May 9, 2017 8:31:49 GMT
I did work on the Monster Manual a few years ago, and it seemed to come out fairly well. A few entries had obvious errors and a few had oddities that were more difficult to work out. The Fiend Folio turns out to be much smoother except for, again, the occasional oddities (such as I've already mentioned).
I plan to get around to the Monster Manual II eventually. From what I've done with that book so far, the entries are much farther from the DMG's system. At times it seems like someone has used an entirely new system to come up with their numbers, but only for certain of the monsters and not consistently throughout the book. That one's been a hassle.
And I went looking for examples of XPs that were precalculated in modules. I found T1-4, Temple of Elemental Evil has them listed along with the monster stats. However, many of them jut ain't correct -- for instance, simple 0-level peasants with no missile weapons are said to be worth 10 XP + 1 XP/hp. That's wrong. They should be worth 5+1/hp. Every NPC I've checked in that module (only about 8, I guess) has been overvalued.
|
|
|
Post by Algolei on May 9, 2017 8:33:16 GMT
|
|