|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 12, 2015 15:24:15 GMT -6
So it appears that original D&D had two definitions of "monster level": one regards how much experience you get for defeating a monster; the other regards the monster's relative power and placement in a dungeon. Here I want to talk about the latter definition.
Original D&D had six monster levels. I've checked Greyhawk, and that also lists six monster levels. In AD&D there are ten monster levels.
My question is: is there any source—supplement or article—that expands the number of monster levels in D&D prior to AD&D?
The only interesting case I've found so far is from The Dragon #3, in which the idiot class can confuse monsters of levels 1 to 7. Naturally, I don't take this article too seriously, and it's not an "official" class by any stretch of the imagination, but it does show someone thinking about the limits of monster levels at that time. In any case I'm not sure what to make of monster level 7.
Note that spell levels also underwent an expansion, from six in the original rules to nine in Greyhawk. Meanwhile, dungeon and character levels were always unlimited.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 12, 2015 16:59:23 GMT -6
The Monster & Tresure Assortment goes through level 9, and might be a fine resource for you to use for monsters at various duneong levels. While it's technically an AD&D product, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was designed for OD&D. (Recall that the AD&D Mnster Manual was actually OD&D compatible as well.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 12, 2015 17:22:25 GMT -6
Doesn't the M&TA go by dungeon levels, not monster levels?
It's branded as D&D, not AD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 13, 2015 4:59:31 GMT -6
Doesn't the M&TA go by dungeon levels, not monster levels? It does. I must be mis-interpreting what you are trying to find. So it appears that original D&D had two definitions of "monster level": one regards how much experience you get for defeating a monster; the other regards the monster's relative power and placement in a dungeon. Here I want to talk about the latter definition. Original D&D had six monster levels. I've checked Greyhawk, and that also lists six monster levels. So now I have U&WA in front of me and am looking at pages 10-11, which I assume to be the source of your question, and I think now I can see the point you are making. While M&TA tells me which monsters can be found on each level, I really don't know which column (1-6) each would represent, which means that I really don't know which of the six individual charts the monster came from. I had thought that one could reverse-engineer the tables, which is to say that if I could start with the M&TA and made notes of which monsters appeared on which dungeon levels I could estimate which of the columns most likely represented that monster. Of course, now I see that the flaw in my reasoning is that this process still groups monsters into the six columns and what you want to know if that if any source ever used more than six columns. So my so-called briliant thought was less than helpful. Drat.  I guess my revised answer would be "no, I've never seen any source expand the columns." On the other hand, the monsters in column 6 seem pretty tough and I can't think of many critters tougher than hydra, dragon, and the like. Perhaps demons and/or devils? Hmmmm. It's branded as D&D, not AD&D. Also my error. I rechecked my copy and you are correct on this. For some reason I had mentally grouped this in the "it says AD&D but is really OD&D" category. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 13, 2015 7:27:06 GMT -6
I guess my revised answer would be "no, I've never seen any source expand the columns." On the other hand, the monsters in column 6 seem pretty tough and I can't think of many critters tougher than hydra, dragon, and the like. Perhaps demons and/or devils? Hmmmm. I wouldn't expect the monsters to be tougher than the 6th level monsters in U&WA; I'm more wondering about any redefinitions of monster levels as a whole. AD&D did it by expanding monster levels to 10, and I'm wondering if they remained 6 until AD&D. I suspect that they did. I find it a little odd that Greyhawk is the last publication to specify new monster levels until the DMG with its XP-to-level table. You have to guess what level a monster is after that. That's not TOO hard by taking its "experience level" (hit dice adjusted for special abilities) and recognizing that monster levels 1 to 4 are approximately equal to monster experience levels 1 to 4, then splitting the last two levels into "tough" and "really d**n tough." |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 13, 2015 10:18:47 GMT -6
So it appears that original D&D had two definitions of "monster level": one regards how much experience you get for defeating a monster; the other regards the monster's relative power and placement in a dungeon. Here I want to talk about the latter definition. Original D&D had six monster levels. I've checked Greyhawk, and that also lists six monster levels. In AD&D there are ten monster levels. My question is: is there any source—supplement or article—that expands the number of monster levels in D&D prior to AD&D? I don't know of a source, but I don't think six level divisions is mysterious. The Dalluhn draft also has 6 monster levels for dungeons, tied to a d6 variable distribution matrix - the MONSTER DETERMINATION AND LEVEL OF MONSTER MATRIX, just as in U&WA. The draft doesn't allow for "funny dice" so everything is either d6 or percentiles. The U&WA tables are just a slightly refined carryover. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 13, 2015 11:24:57 GMT -6
i don't think six level divisions is mysterious. Neither do I. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 12:00:43 GMT -6
hehe. This thread is the reason I still use the term "Challenge Rating" from 3e. As the first level of a hard dungeon isn't really Level One.
I still prefer M&TA's 9 level split. As it divides nicely into three groups of three.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 13, 2015 14:52:03 GMT -6
Doesn't the M&TA go by dungeon levels, not monster levels? This brings up an interesting idea. I think, despite the identical terminology, "monster level" on the U&WA chart is really "dungeon level", which only refers to dungeon depth when the assumption is that deeper = more dangerous. It's "challenge level", but there is no formula as in 3rd edition. It's seat of the pants judgment, although I feel dungeon level * 1.5, dropping fractions, is a good approximation of the upper range of hit dice for each monster level. A lot of players, especially today, but even as far back as the original printing, expect a much more formal definition of terms like "level". But I don't think "level" was ever intended as a formal term in the game, but is being used in an everyday sense of "power" or "ability". We talk about education levels or level in an organization's hierarchy all the time in the real world, and did so even before video games or D&D existed. When people raised objections early on to the "confusing" multiple uses of the word "level", I think they were overlooking the ordinary meanings of the word, or hoping for precision instead of a bunch of ad hoc suggestions for how to play an adventurer in a fantasy world. |
|
