|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 4, 2021 5:14:37 GMT -6
The Treasure Types table (M&T p22) has been discussed a few times (e.g., here) where we usually talk about the relative values of the treasure types. But what about which monster-types are assigned each of those treasure types? As it stands in M&T the monsters with the best (highest mean g.p. value) treasure hidden in their lairs are like this: A3 (90k g.p.) pirates*, buccaneers*, mermen H (81k g.p.) dragons A2 (48k g.p.) nomands*, dervishes A1 (36k g.p.) brigands*, bandits*, berserkers, centaurs G (24k g.p.) dwarfs I (17k g.p.) rocs F (13k g.p.) vampires, basilisks, medusa, chimera D (7.3k g.p.) orcs, gnolls, hobgoblins, trolls, mummies, cockatrice, manticora, purple worms, dryads B (3.9k g.p.) ghouls, wights, hydra, nixies E (3.4k g.p.) giants*, wraiths, spectres, gorgons, wyverns, elves, griffons C (2.4k g.p.) ogres*, pixies, gnomes, gargoyles, lycans, minotaur Nil (0 g.p.) goblins*, kobolds*, zombies, skeletons, unicorns, ents, pegasi, hippogriffs, djinn, efreet, elementals, invis. stalkers, insects, animals, slimes/oozes * extra treasure. An interesting thing about this is the asymmetry between the challenge a monster-type presents and the treasure it is sitting on. Another is that some of the richest treasures have seemingly odd stewards (centaurs, bandits, nomads, rocs?) while some of the epic villains get short shrift (ogres, giants, spectres, vampires?). It all seems a bit... foggy. Given free rein to re-assign the monsters into the 12 treasure "grades", how would you do it? I.e., which monsters do you think should have the most and least treasure? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 4, 2021 7:36:42 GMT -6
But what about which monster-types are assigned each of those treasure types? Looking at it subjectively there are a couple monsters that do not fall where I would imagine them, Giants and orcs for instance. Yet nothing is so far out of wack that would incline me to rework the results. How are magic items figured into the means? Or aren't they. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 4, 2021 8:14:14 GMT -6
I seldom use treasure types to randomly determine the amount of monetary treasure in a lair. Instead, I typically make the monetary value of such treasures somewhere between 3 and 4 times the amount (in gp value) of the total amount of xp worth of all the monsters living there. (So if all the monsters in a lair are worth a total of 2,000 xp, their monetary treasure will be worth between 6,000 and 8,000 gp.)
I do use the treasure types to help determine the sorts of treasure in a lair. Oh, so this monster's treasure type does NOT include gold pieces? Well, then, that monster will not have any gold pieces! I also use the amounts listed as good minimums and maximums for a particular sort of treasure. For example, if the treasure type indicates between 10,000 and 40,000 sp, the monster (if it has any silver pieces at all) will have no fewer than 10,000 sp and no more than 40,000 sp. But I do not roll for the amount. I choose.
Magic items? Here I use the treasure types as is. I just roll!
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 4, 2021 11:45:50 GMT -6
I hadn't considered it from this view point before and it makes me want to go through and reevaluate the assigned treasures.
I use the treasure type tables and find them to be very useful, but the amounts are ridiculously inflated. I divide by 10. So "1000's of GP" becomes 100's.
There was much acrimony over "Monty Haul" campaigns back in the early days, this is much of the source of the over the top treasure amounts. I suspect The Hobbit had some influence here.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 4, 2021 15:18:56 GMT -6
But what about which monster-types are assigned each of those treasure types? Looking at it subjectively there are a couple monsters that do not fall where I would imagine them, Giants and orcs for instance. Yet nothing is so far out of wack that would incline me to rework the results. How are magic items figured into the means? Or aren't they. Magic Items raise another question, since the treasure types aren't just about mean value, but also distinguish which kinds of magic items are allowed. The most important distinction: - Type B is "weapons and armor only" (apparently also excludes maps?) - Type F is "no weapons" - Type A2 is "magic only" (presumably excluding maps) - Type A3 is "map only, no magic" - Everything else is "any magic or map" A less important distinction is: - Type D magic items always includes a potion - Types E and G magic always includes a scroll - Types F and H magic always includes a potion and a scroll There's a similar distinction when it comes to gems and jewelry: most type can have the same amount of either, but Types G/H have higher upper limits on the number of gems compared to jewelry. This makes it harder to shuffle treasure types around, unless either you decide to ignore those distinctions or split the coins from the rest of the treasure, effectively switching to three-letter treasure codes. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 4, 2021 17:30:48 GMT -6
Magic Items raise another question, since the treasure types aren't just about mean value, but also distinguish which kinds of magic items are allowed. Yes and, here again subjectively speaking, there are a few that do not include certain items or are not as richly deposited in a lair as I would think. Dragons have always appeared lacking in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 4, 2021 18:28:33 GMT -6
I wasn't (for once!) specifically interested in the nuance of exactly what the treasure is; I was more broadly interested in which monsters do folks feel (from a mythology or fantasy fiction sense) seem either underdone or overdone insofar as their treasure hoards, relative to other the other types.
E.g. For me, I feel like the greatest dragons should unquestionably have the top treasure in the game. IMC, bandits are masterless scumbags eeking out a rude existence and should have substantially less treasure than brigands and pirates--who actively collect it. And no way would centaurs have more treasure than dragons!! I also feel that rocs and dwarfs are overdone (Thror was an exception, not the rule); elves and the greater giants probably underdone. Un- or semi-intelligent types (e.g., cockatrice, basilisk, hydra, purple worm) don't actively collect treasure, so they might have just whatever random tidbits their victims happened to be carrying--possibly a would-be-hero's magic sword or armor, but not 20,000 g.p. in neatly stacked coins.
These are the kinds of broad strokes I was interested in.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 4, 2021 18:53:11 GMT -6
I dunno, I think I'm less interested in which monster deserves which amount of treasure than which monster deserves which kinds of treasure, as you kind of hint at in your second paragraph, waysoftheearth. Dwarves get their own treasure type because their treasure type excludes copper and silver. Gold only, folks, and lots of it! Because dwarves are greedy for the gold. Type B treasure, on the other hand, seems to be a low-end warrior's tomb kind of treasure. Ghouls and wights make sense, there, and suppose nixies have warrior treasure because it's left over from the warriors they charmed and enslaved (plus, you need to exclude potions and scrolls from underwater lairs.) Why hydras are also included isn't clear, but knowing this, maybe Type B would make a good alternative for bandits, if you want them to be distinct from brigands (I personally don't see as big a difference between them as you do, so I'm OK with them having the "land" version of Type A alongside brigands.) It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to give giants the same type as elves, since the main feature of Type E is that there's a guaranteed scroll if there's any magic item involved. That just doesn't scream "that's what giants would want to horde!" to me. So maybe something more like C x 2 + 1,000 gp? |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 4, 2021 19:10:34 GMT -6
It would kind of be cool for each monster to have its own unique treasure type, tailored specifically for it. For example, I have purple worms (whether on Carcosa, or in the Wilderness, or in Mike's World, or anyplace else) have this treasure without fail:
PURPLE IVORY
Purple worm teeth are the sole source of purple ivory. Purple worms always have an even number of teeth (at least 26 and no more than 34). As they grow, they get more teeth as follows:
If a worm has 15 to 35 hit points, it has 26 teeth.
If a worm has 36 to 56 hit points, it has 28 teeth.
If a worm has 57 to 78 hit points, it has 30 teeth.
If a worm has 79 to 99 hit points, it has 32 teeth.
If a worm has 100-120 hit points, it has 34 teeth.
A purple worm's open mouth averages nearly 5.5' in diameter. A purple worm tooth is conical and about 2" in diameter at the base, and they vary from 3" to 4" long. A typical tooth weighs 1 pound. Thus, on average, a dead purple worm will supply 30 pounds of purple ivory.
Purple ivory is worth 54 to 108 g.p. per pound. An average purple worm, therefore, has 1,620 to 3,240 g.p. worth of purple ivory in its mouth, which averages to 2,430 g.p.
Purple worm teeth look merely white in the heat of an encounter with one of these unspeakable beasts. When a tooth is examined it becomes obvious that, just as elephant ivory is white with a slight tint of yellow, so these teeth are white with a slight tint of purple. This purple tint deepens over the centuries, thus helping experts in estimating the age of such treasures.
Mottled purple ivory (also called "mottled ivory") comes from the mottled (purple) worm. Since these beasts are aquatic and thus that much harder to harvest teeth from, mottled ivory is 50% more valuable than regular purple ivory (81 to 162 g.p. per pound).
Mottled ivory is (appropriately enough) mottled with various shades and hues of purple. It becomes more variegated with age, its shades becoming ever more difficult to name or describe. Indeed, while connoisseurs of the ivory have names for over 100 hues of its purple, some of these experts can discern twice that number of shades.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 4, 2021 19:17:05 GMT -6
I also like for some dragons to slumber atop truly mountainous piles of treasure. It's the visual of the thing. I certainly don't want a dragon with 1,000,000 g.p.! So what to do?
bronze pieces and/or brass pieces and/or iron pieces, worth a mere fraction of a copper piece
You can have literally millions of such coins in a dragon's hoard, and it won't break anything: "Look! We killed the dragon, and it has TEN MILLION bronze pieces! We're rich!" Sure you are... Just keep in mind that those 10,000,000 coins are worth a total of 12,500 g.p. and weigh FIVE HUNDRED TONS.
"It's not a treasure, Jim. It's a special effect."
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 4, 2021 19:23:34 GMT -6
It would kind of be cool for each monster to have its own unique treasure type, tailored specifically for it. Perhaps something like this? odd74.proboards.com/thread/4920/another-kind-treasure-typesI also like for some dragons to slumber atop truly mountainous piles of treasure. It's the visual of the thing. I certainly don't want a dragon with 1,000,000 g.p.! So what to do? Another option is that a g.p. is an abstract value, which is physically embodied in many coins. So a dragon can lie on a huge pile of coins that is worth 10,000 g.p. without having to specifically account for the make of every individual coin. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 4, 2021 19:40:53 GMT -6
It would kind of be cool for each monster to have its own unique treasure type, tailored specifically for it. For example, I have purple worms (whether on Carcosa, or in the Wilderness, or in Mike's World, or anyplace else) have this treasure without fail: I like the idea that their treasure hoard actually resides in their stomachs. No true lair. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 4, 2021 22:12:59 GMT -6
Another option is that a g.p. is an abstract value, which is physically embodied in many coins. So a dragon can lie on a huge pile of coins that is worth 10,000 g.p. without having to specifically account for the make of every individual coin. At that point, I might just say the dragon has "as much copper and silver as you want and can figure out how to transport" and then only provide exact accounting of gold, gems, jewelry, and magic items. This approach might also be good for an Ali-Baba and the Forty Thieves style human-owned treasure hoard. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 11, 2021 9:23:44 GMT -6
... some of the epic villains get short shrift (ogres, giants, spectres, vampires?)... You have them asterisked, but it bears noting for ogres & giants that the extra 1,000 and 5,000 gp noted on the monster table (and a bit less on average when wandering per text), in addition to the treasure-type letter, significantly increase their value. E.g., if interpreted per individual monster (like it says in the text for ogres), that doubles or decuples the value. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 9:29:34 GMT -6
... some of the epic villains get short shrift (ogres, giants, spectres, vampires?)... You have them asterisked, but it bears noting for ogres & giants that the extra 1,000 and 5,000 gp noted on the monster table (and a bit less on average when wandering per text), in addition to the treasure-type letter, significantly increase their value. E.g., if interpreted per individual monster (like it says in the text for ogres), that doubles or decuples the value. This seems like a likely thing for OP to have overlooked. It wouldn't be OD&D if all the relevant information for a given situation was all in one logical place, now would it? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 11, 2021 10:15:32 GMT -6
The Treasure Types table (M&T p22) has been discussed a few times (e.g., here) where we usually talk about the relative values of the treasure types. But what about which monster-types are assigned each of those treasure types? As it stands in M&T the monsters with the best (highest mean g.p. value) treasure hidden in their lairs are like this: A3 (90k g.p.) pirates*, buccaneers*, mermen H (81k g.p.) dragons A2 (48k g.p.) nomands*, dervishes A1 (36k g.p.) brigands*, bandits*, berserkers, centaurs G (24k g.p.) dwarfs I (17k g.p.) rocs F (13k g.p.) vampires, basilisks, medusa, chimera D (7.3k g.p.) orcs, gnolls, hobgoblins, trolls, mummies, cockatrice, manticora, purple worms, dryads B (3.9k g.p.) ghouls, wights, hydra, nixies E (3.4k g.p.) giants*, wraiths, spectres, gorgons, wyverns, elves, griffons C (2.4k g.p.) ogres*, pixies, gnomes, gargoyles, lycans, minotaur Nil (0 g.p.) goblins*, kobolds*, zombies, skeletons, unicorns, ents, pegasi, hippogriffs, djinn, efreet, elementals, invis. stalkers, insects, animals, slimes/oozes * extra treasure. An interesting thing about this is the asymmetry between the challenge a monster-type presents and the treasure it is sitting on. Another is that some of the richest treasures have seemingly odd stewards (centaurs, bandits, nomads, rocs?) while some of the epic villains get short shrift (ogres, giants, spectres, vampires?). It all seems a bit... foggy. Given free rein to re-assign the monsters into the 12 treasure "grades", how would you do it? I.e., which monsters do you think should have the most and least treasure? The treasure types actually feel right to me. Obviously pirates and dragons hoard treasure. Dwarfs are greedy gold lovers, and rocs stash shiny things like magpies. Nomads extract tributes from civilized areas (remember the Huns, Avars, Bolgars, Turkish groups, etc of late antiquity, and even the Mongols in the later middle ages). The kagan is riding around in a huge silk tent pulled by 100 white bulls filled with slaves and chests full of gold and luxury goods. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2021 19:15:27 GMT -6
You have them asterisked, but it bears noting for ogres & giants that the extra 1,000 and 5,000 gp noted on the monster table (and a bit less on average when wandering per text), in addition to the treasure-type letter, significantly increase their value. E.g., if interpreted per individual monster (like it says in the text for ogres), that doubles or decuples the value. This seems like a likely thing for OP to have overlooked. It wouldn't be OD&D if all the relevant information for a given situation was all in one logical place, now would it? I didn't really overlook it, as such. I assumed that if individuals are carrying treasure around, it is generally treasure from their lair hoard so it doesn't impact the overall lair value significantly. Looking at the monster stats table again, I see that M&T p3 has for Ogres: "1,000 g.p. + type C", so it's true that an Ogre lair has an average of 3.4k g.p. treasure (equal value to type E), rather than 2.4k (type C). For Giants, M&T p3 also says: "5,000 g.p. + type E", so that yields an average of 8.4k g.p. (1,000 gp more than type D) rather than 3.4k g.p. (type E). (FWIW, I'd like cloud giants to have more treasure than hill giants). So, perhaps something like this would have been better? A3 (90k g.p.) pirates*, buccaneers*, mermen H (81k g.p.) dragons A2 (48k g.p.) nomands*, dervishes A1 (36k g.p.) brigands*, bandits*, berserkers, centaurs G (24k g.p.) dwarfs I (17k g.p.) rocs F (13k g.p.) vampires, basilisks, medusa, chimera E+ (8.4k g.p.) giants*D (7.3k g.p.) orcs, gnolls, hobgoblins, trolls, mummies, cockatrice, manticora, purple worms, dryads B (3.9k g.p.) ghouls, wights, hydra, nixies E/C+ (3.4k g.p.) ogres*, giants*, wraiths, spectres, gorgons, wyverns, elves, griffons C (2.4k g.p.) ogres*, pixies, gnomes, gargoyles, lycans, minotaur Nil (0 g.p.) goblins*, kobolds*, zombies, skeletons, unicorns, ents, pegasi, hippogriffs, djinn, efreet, elementals, invis. stalkers, insects, animals, slimes/oozes * extra treasure. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2021 19:19:55 GMT -6
Nomads extract tributes from civilized areas (remember the Huns, Avars, Bolgars, Turkish groups, etc of late antiquity, and even the Mongols in the later middle ages). The kagan is riding around in a huge silk tent pulled by 100 white bulls filled with slaves and chests full of gold and luxury goods. Sure; I don't have a particular issue with types G or A2. A1 and I (rocs) I'm a bit dubious of, however. I guess this just goes to show it's all a matter of personal taste  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 11, 2021 21:00:30 GMT -6
FWIW, in the early printings Tolkien's Eagles are called out by name at the start of the entry for "Roc", which emphasizes their intelligence more than the later printings where this is omitted. I don't recall anything relevant in Tolkien, but perhaps Gygax thought a powerful race like the Eagles would collect some kind of treasure. Type I is limited to Gems/Jewelry + Maps/Magic, which kind fits a race that is intelligent but doesn't favor coins. And being the only Type I, it seems that this type was added just for this creature. Alternately, check out the original 2nd Voyage of Sinbad tale: (emphasis added) This alone might explain the assignment of Gems! |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jul 12, 2021 14:47:47 GMT -6
That makes sense for the Roc/Gem connection, yes.
I kind of feel like Tolkien's Giant Eagles (intelligent, and big enough to carry a human, but not much more - Gandalf is apparently a significant burden) should be a different monster entry from proper Rocs (not intelligent, and large enough to carry away elephants).
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 12, 2021 16:15:59 GMT -6
Well that is, of course, what Gygax did in the AD&D Monster Manual, but in both Chainmail (2nd Edition) and OD&D (1st printing) they were lumped together. The "Eagle" influence is apparent in both their alignment (listed with the forces of Law and Neutrality in Vol 1), and their favorability towards Lawful characters noted in Vol 2. Both of these characteristics remained even after the explicit reference to the Eagles was deleted. The description does imply that the Roc of mythology should have double or triple HD as compared to Giant Eagle-sized ones, showing the roots of the later split into two entries.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 12, 2021 17:19:00 GMT -6
I agree with both the Roc references Zenopus, great find. Perhaps it's just a case of salt to taste, but I still don't think that giant eagles, in their distant, isolated mountain eyries, should--in general--have more treasure than say, elves, or gnomes, or mummies, or vampires. Sure, there can be exceptions, but they should be the exceptions and not the rule. Part of the "imbalance" is that jewellery is so fantastically valuable compared to coins in OD&D (each piece of jewellery being worth an average of ~3,400 g.p.). As soon as Rocs, or anyone, has jewellery the value of their hoard goes up dramatically. I think I recall that jewellery makes up around 70% of the value of all randomly generated treasure in the game. So... all the coins in all the dwarf and dragon hoards don't count for as much as the shiny trinkets--including those found in a few Roc nests  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 12, 2021 18:02:32 GMT -6
I remember as a small child in around 1974 that I had a storybook + record of Sinbad's voyages. The page I would stare at the most was Sinbad amongst the huge gemstones (each one of several different colors) of the roc. Ever since then my imagination invariably pictures rocs with gemstones. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 12, 2021 18:13:01 GMT -6
Sure. But a gem is (on average) worth one-tenth of what an average piece of jewellery is worth. So... Rocs could have 1-4 pieces of jewellery and 10-40 or even 20-80 gems, and their overall hoard value would be lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 12, 2021 18:55:15 GMT -6
Looking at the monster stats table again, I see that M&T p3 has for Ogres: "1,000 g.p. + type C", so it's true that an Ogre lair has an average of 3.4k g.p. treasure (equal value to type E), rather than 2.4k (type C)... I feel like by the book the extra value is intended to be per-monster (not one lump sum), similar to the extra coins for men and goblins/kobolds. Consider a wandering band of Ogres; the text says: The number appearing is 3-18, average 10.5, so a wandering band will have an average of 10.5 × 350 = 3,675 gold pieces total. And that's more than what you're estimating for the whole lair treasure. So granted that they've got an even higher bonus in the lair, it seems that total number should be higher. Compounded that Treasure Type C itself doesn't include any gold at all, so the opposite interpretation would be wandering Ogres carrying 3,675 gp from a lair treasure that has only a fixed 1,000 gp. Same method for Giants, I assume (which winds up being a heck of a lot of treasure). But I'm not going to argue about it, I actually strike out those bonuses in my book as being too much. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 12, 2021 20:21:52 GMT -6
The number appearing is 3-18, average 10.5, so a wandering band will have an average of 10.5 × 350 = 3,675 gold pieces total. I like your thinking delta The argument that the sum of loot carried by the individuals exceeds the lair total holds. But FWIW, I take M&T's Number Appearing figures to be the total number of monsters in a lair. The number of wandering monsters encountered in the underworld is determined by the monster type, dungeon level, and the number of players (per U&WA pp 11-12), or in the wilderness by Arneson's method (FFC pp 36-37): 10-60% of the total number in the lair, recurringly split into two groups so long as a 6 is thrown each time. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 13, 2021 13:05:14 GMT -6
So while I was hitting the lbbs to study up on this conversation I ran across yet another section of text I often forget about or over look.
M&T top of p. 23: prisoners.
I wonder how this might affect treasure. I mean, the rescue of a prisoner is a kind of treasure. Maybe some of all that A type treasure is the accumulation of wealth off of all the prisoners taken?
I have got to start remembering about prisoners. Sheesh this is an esoteric game.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 27, 2021 8:24:12 GMT -6
FWIW, the Dalluhn ms text for ogres has: <<Ogres will always carry their gold with them, but other treasure will be found in lair>> (book I, p25).
Potentially, their treasure type was changed and nobody noticed that it meant they no longer had any gold!
|
|
