Grammar Ambiguity - Charm Monster

[Mordorandor]

How do you read this sentence in the charm monster spell explanation?

"If animals or creatures with three or fewer hit dice are involved...."

I'm thinking the "with three or fewer hit dice" is referring only to "creatures," not both "animals" and "creatures."

So if a 5 HD animal is involved, it affects the animal.

Otherwise, why call out animals from creatures? Aren't animals creatures?

[Mordorandor]

Curious note:

There are 10 references to "animal" in M&M.

1st is on the Alignment chart.
2nd and 3rd are on the spell lists: Growth/Animal, Speak with Animals.
4th is in the spell explanation of Charm Monster
5th and 6th in the spell explanation of Growth of Animals
The remainder in the spell explanation of Speak with Animals

Other spell explanations that refer to creatures: Sleep, Detect Invisible (Objects), Slow Spell, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, Confusion, Massmorph, Transmute Rock to Mud, Contact Higher Plane, Cloudkill, Death Spell, and Insect Plague.

None of these refer to animals and creatures. Only Charm Monster uses that phrase/combination.

Edit: and the phrase in Charm Monster is "animals or creatures ..." not "animals and creatures ..." if that makes a difference.

[Finarvyn]

I'll confess that I've never really thought this through and can't offhand recall any times when my players charmed animals with it, but here are some off-the-cuff thoughts:

(1) I don't recall animals getting stats like HD in OD&D, so it's possible that they were assumed to be minimal HD and thus didn't need to be given a HD range. It might be worth a peek into AD&D's Monster Manual to see which animals are listed, and if any are greater than 3 HD. (I know that the MM was written much later, but it's the closest to a complete OD&D monster book that we have.)

(2) My initial thought would be to lump "animals or creatures" together as "monsters", so animals of 3 HD or less, plus creatures of 3 HD or less. In other words, charm monster would involve monsters of 3 HD or less whether those monsters are animals or other creatures. I would guess that the phrase "If animals of three or fewer hit dice or creatures with three or fewer hit dice are involved...." would have been somewhat awkward.

(3) On the other hand, Speak with Animals sure seems to lump all animals together into one pile. Again, it might be that natural animals are simply assumed to have minimal HD so no guidelines needed to be stated. And it's certainly possible that your interpretation of animals (all of them) and creatures (weaker, so 3 HD or fewer) is what was intended.

This looks like another great example of LBB ambiguity, so nice catch. I'll be interested to see how others weigh in and/or how they have used this spell.

[kenhr]

There’s no ambiguity here. No comma before the “or” indicates the 3HD qualifier applies to animals and creatures.

[Mordorandor]

Dec 24, 2022 13:02:22 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I'll confess that I've never really thought this through and can't offhand recall any times when my players charmed animals with it, but here are some off-the-cuff thoughts:

(1) I don't recall animals getting stats like HD in OD&D, so it's possible that they were assumed to be minimal HD and thus didn't need to be given a HD range. It might be worth a peek into AD&D's Monster Manual to see which animals are listed, and if any are greater than 3 HD. (I know that the MM was written much later, but it's the closest to a complete OD&D monster book that we have.)

(2) My initial thought would be to lump "animals or creatures" together as "monsters", so animals of 3 HD or less, plus creatures of 3 HD or less. In other words, charm monster would involve monsters of 3 HD or less whether those monsters are animals or other creatures. I would guess that the phrase "If animals of three or fewer hit dice or creatures with three or fewer hit dice are involved...." would have been somewhat awkward.

(3) On the other hand, Speak with Animals sure seems to lump all animals together into one pile. Again, it might be that natural animals are simply assumed to have minimal HD so no guidelines needed to be stated. And it's certainly possible that your interpretation of animals (all of them) and creatures (weaker, so 3 HD or fewer) is what was intended.

This looks like another great example of LBB ambiguity, so nice catch. I'll be interested to see how others weigh in and/or how they have used this spell.

(1) Agreed. Text in M&T talks of small insects or animals, the largest being "of a huge variety of creatures such as wolves, centipedes, snakes and spiders." The smallest ones are killed on any hit, meaning they have 1 HP effectively. The larger ones "(such as wolves)" have 1 HD (1-6 HP). The larger ones, are the giant variety (or at least, the text mentions only the Giant Ant) and prehistoric animals. Of the non-giant animals (and their HD) in the AD&D MM, here is a brief sample: Ape (4+1), Baboon (1+1), Badger (1+2), Barracuda (1 to 3), Bear (3+3 to 6+6), Boar (3 and 3+3), Buffalo (5) ... Wolf (2+2), Wolverine (3). I think these HD values suggest Gary moved away from the guidance in OD&D re: animals. I'm unsure if these are helpful.

(2) I think that's the typical reading, and the one I would have adjudicated. But then I think, if the text in Charm Monster means any creature, including animals, of 3 HD or fewer, then what if 18 centipedes (the 1 HP variety) and a Dragon are in range? (A little hyperbolic, but I hope you get the drift.) Is there a 1 in 19 chance that the Dragon is affected by the spell? Seems odd. I'd imagine that the spell would affect all the centipedes and possibly the Dragon. One could say, well, animals here means any animal with 1 to 3 HD. A stretch, but still viable. But then, all a Dragon need do is charm enough 1 HD wolves to surround it, and it effectively drops the chance of even needing to save to 1 in 19 again. Kind of weird to me.

(3) This insight, and some others, is what got me thinking about this. It does seem in OD&D, animal is a special category of creatures that is called out from the others.

The more I ponder this, the more I lean toward animals being a call/carve out, and any number of them are affected. Perhaps for game balance, the referee restricts it to the small insects and animals variety in M&T and lumps the large insects and animals into the creature category of 3d6 affected, as one might not want a player to charm 3d6 Tyrannosaurus Rexes, each with 20 HD.

[Mordorandor]

Dec 24, 2022 13:48:58 GMT -6 kenhr said:

There’s no ambiguity here. No comma before the “or” indicates the 3HD qualifier applies to animals and creatures.

Normally, I'd agree.

Gary's (?) writing style is notoriously non-normal/standard, cf. "dispell" and "griffons." His use of commas when subordinate clauses begin a sentence is spotty. Take for instance, "Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play..." and "When this task is completed the participants can then be allowed to make their first descent...."

The comma or lack thereof in either case does little to change the meaning, but it's the inconsistency of use that then leads to question in other cases of use or non-use.

Also, an "or" can also mean "only x, only y, or both x and y" and not just "either x or y, but not both."

Is the "or" here meant as one of those instances? or is it simply saying the same thing as "all creatures?" Could it have meant "either animals or creatures with 3 HD or fewer but not both?"

Again, strange that Gary thought to connect "animal or" to "creatures" in this one spell when in all other spells that affect creatures he simply states "creatures."

[Vile Traveller]

Dec 24, 2022 13:02:22 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

(1) I don't recall animals getting stats like HD in OD&D, so it's possible that they were assumed to be minimal HD and thus didn't need to be given a HD range.

In M&T small animals range from "any hit will kill" to 1 HD. Large animals can be anything from 2 "to anywhere near 20".

[Mordorandor]

Sorry to rattle off all these thoughts ...

Another curious item:

Sleep has sometimes confused people as to which category of creature is affected when there is a mixed group.

"A Sleep spell affects from 2-16 1st level types (hit dice of up to 1 + 1), from 2-12 2nd level types (hit dice of up to 2 +1), from 1-6, 3rd level types, and
but 1 4th level type (up to 4 +1 hit dice)."

(First, note the unnecessary comma here, "... from 1-6, 3rd level types ...." Likely a typo.)

Does the "and" mean all these categories are affected by the spell in the quantities listed? I would read this sentence to mean just that.

Come to find out, Michael Mornard confirmed the category affected was rolled randomly when there were mixed groups.

Imagine a sleep spell used on a mixed group of 10 1-HD creatures, 10 2-HD creatures, 10 3-HD creatures, and 10 4-HD creatures. It's not that "2-16 1-HD creatures are affected AND 2d6 2-HD creatures are affected AND ..." (which the "and" would lead me to believe), but the referee rolls randomly to determine the HD-category affected, and that's the only HD-category affected.

[Vile Traveller]

Sleep is another one of those examples of spectacular vaguety (I made that up). Perhaps in Gygax's early games only one creature type was ever encountered at any one time? Makes sense according to the encounter tables.

[plethon]

My assumption would be "Roll 3d6 for any living thing with 3 HD or fewer." but this thread made me lean towards "Roll 3d6 for all animals, regardless of HD, and for any living thing with 3 HD or fewer."

I don't think it should hinge on the presence or absence of a comma, because I'm interested in the thinking and intention behind it.