Getting started, thinking small

Last time, I uploaded a map of the area we normally think of as constituting what we call "Ancient Greece" - a designation that the people living there may have struggled to understand given that they so rarely thought of themselves as being anything other than rivals until Alexander the Great rolled in and told them all to shut up. After he died, of course, they went back to not thinking of themselves as one nation until the Romans rolled in and told them all to shut up and pay their taxes.

Anyway.

That map is fairly typical of a small campaign map. For comparison, the individual map sheets in Judges Guild's seminal Wilderlands campaign are each about ⅙th the size of the Greek map in area, but there were 18 of them in the full campaign, which comes out at 3 times the area. The famous Darlene Greyhawk maps cover about 10% more than that again. So our "Ancient Greece" campaign is not exceptional but it is a massive geographical area to cover. If you are starting out running a campaign, this sort of thing can be very intimidating. Where to start?

Let's have a look at a smaller map - the one used in the thumbnail above. There's a jpeg of this map scaled so that it will fill an A3 sheet at 300dpi (or A4 at 424dpi).

The hex size on this map is 6 miles face-to-face (the size of the small hexes on the Greek map) and it is a very special map because it is the map I live on. But more than that. It is the map:

• I was born on (hex 0201)
• My parents lived on when I was very small (0101)
• I went to school on (0301)
• I was legally married on (0301 again)
• We had our wedding reception on (0304)
• I had my first programming job on (0101)
• And, as mentioned, we now live on (in a specific hex with almost no other inhabitation, so I'm keeping that to myself)

I have lived and worked away from this map - I recently returned after 10 years in England - but my parents only left it - ever* - for holidays and my grandparents maybe only even did that once or twice.

Since I've spent a lot of time on this map I can tell you something useful about it: those 6m hexes are huge. 

Even with modern motorised transport and decades of living here, there are entire hexes on this map I have never passed through and many places in the hexes I have which I have never seen or visited. This is a map you could explore on foot for a lifetime.

This little map of 22 hexes is in fact big enough for a campaign.

At this point, I suggest you try to make a similar map for where you live now. At A3 size, the scale is 1"=2m, or 1:126720. If you use QGIS and save an area to that scale from the Open Street Map dataset (included) as an image you can import the image into Inkscape and add the hexes with the Inkscape Hex Map Extension. Be aware that the extension currently takes "hex size" to be point-to-point, so you need to give it sizes which are 1.155 times what you would expect to.

Even searching a sea hex takes time.
(It took me about an hour and a half to track this
bloody image down and I'm not sure it was worth it).
Art: Don Simpson's Megaton Man

If you do that then you will immediately see what I can see on this map - finding something the size of, say, a tomb in one of those hexes is going to be bloody hard unless the tomb is Mausolus's or the hex is made of flat glass, or you have magic.

Going back to the post "A Lorry-Load of Sand" from last year, I would guess that most of the hexes on this map would have been forest with the exception of the Ards Peninsula (running south from 0401) which would have been, in ye olden time, forested hills; 0101 would be forested hills and marsh (plus sea). Civilisation/patrolled would have been basically restricted to 0104, 0204, 0205, 0301, 0302, and 0305 (Belfast is a very new city, if you're wondering about that large conurbation in hexes 0101/0102 on the modern map).

If we plug in the details to the sandbox generator and selecting only plains, forest, hills, marsh, and shallow salt sea we get (seed 3645131196):

• 0101 3 forest lairs, 0 marsh, and 1 salt water shallow lair. I've divided the results from the table to reflect the distribution of terrains. All plain wilderness.
• 0102 3 forest lairs, wilderness.
• 0103 I'm classing as patrolled and we get no lairs
• 0104 is densely populated and we get no lairs again.
• 0105 is patrolled and we get 2 forest lairs.
• 0106 is patrolled, 1 forest lair.
• 0201 (hex 7 on the table) is sparsely populated hills (Craigantlet) with no lairs.
• 0202 is wild forest with 2 lairs.
• 0203 is sparsely populated forest with 1 lair.
• 0204 is densely populated and probably plains (Downpatrick area), so no lair.
• 0205 is half populated hills and half patrolled (fishing boats and traders for Dundrum) shallow sea, giving us 1 sea lair (I rounded up).
• 0301 (hex 12) is the area around what will one day be Bangor abbey/monastery and is basically populated hills, with no lairs.
• 0302 is about half and half sea lough and hills, busy enough to count as densely populated. No lairs.
• 0303 is unpopulated low-lying forest, no lairs.
• 0304 is semi-populated and divided between plain and shallow sea. 1 lair on the land.
• 0305 is semi-populated woodland, 1 lair.
• 0306 is shallow sea. Semi-populated by boats trading up and down the coast (and some actual patrols to protect them). One lair.
• 0401 (hex 18) semi-populated sea and hills. One lair in the hills.
• 0402 unpopulated forested hills and patrolled shallow sea. 2 forest lairs (4 indicated, halved), no sea lairs.
• 0403 as 0402 with 1 forest lair.
• 0404 same again but no lairs at all, and finally.
• 0405 open shallow sea with nothing in it.

That's a total of 20 lairs in total.

What are the lairs? Let's develop one of these hexes and see. Things will depend on your mix of acceptable monsters for your campaign, of course, but for hex 0101 four rolls on the DMG temperate tables for forest and salt water gives:

1. Tribesmen (20)
2. Pseudo-dragon (1)
3. Shambling mound (2: 11 HD and 9 HD)
4. Giant shark (1: 11 HD) 

The giant shark doesn't actually lair and technically I should have re-rolled (just as I did for the merchants I rolled for #1) but I decided that perhaps this shark just patrols here a lot. 

Why does it patrol here a lot? Well, maybe those (Celtic) tribesmen are doing something. Let's look at them in detail.

The base 20 is augmented by another 20 women and 20 children, so that's 60 in the tribe. There is also (some of this is rolled, some is a set number from the MM text): two 3rd level fighters, a 4th level fighter, and a 5th level chief. Additionally, two 4th level "druids" under the leadership of an 8th level witchdoctor (also druidic).  There's 20 slaves, but no captives.

They have ivory - probably walrus or perhaps whale products like narwal horns - worth 4,000gp. The village itself is just a bunch of huts; there is no wall of any sort

The slaves will be a mix of tribal taboo-breakers and useful captives from other tribes. 

The 5th level fighter leading them has stats that look like this (from More IV):

Str: 18

Int: 6

Wis: 15, Alignment Neutral

Con: 12, hp 37

Dex: 12, AC 7

Cha: 15

Com: 16

Basically, a charismatic lunkhead. Presumably the witchdoctor is the brains. Let's look at him:

Str: 16

Int: 12

Wis: 17, Alignment LN

Con: 8, hp 50

Dex: 10, AC 7

Cha: 7

Com: 12

Yes - everything you'd want in a leader except no one likes him.

So let's say that they have no normal captives because they worship the giant shark and normally captives get sacrificed to him. Having run out they're on the lookout for someone else to sacrifice. The slaves know that they'll be next if no one else is found, so their reaction dice to strangers will be at -20% in terms of rebelling. The full tribal members will be even worse at -30%. However, they will deliberately hide it.

I've always assumed that the indication of "druidic" casters in tribesmen does not necessarily mean that the casters are strictly druids with druid alignment restrictions, so I would definitely go with a Wicker Man or Burn the Witch feel.

The shambling mounds will be in the marshes where the river flows out into the tidal mudflats - the area which has extensively been reclaimed and modified on the modern map. They - or the remains of their victims - are rich in treasure:

• 1000 cp,
• Jewelry (4): 7000 gp Seal, 3000 gp Chain, 2000 gp Crown, 2000 gp Buckle,
• Scroll of Protection - Electricity, 
• Spell Scroll (Magic User: Transmute Rock to Mud, Mass Charm, Mass Invisibility, Glassteel, Cone of Cold, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer),
• Bracers of Archery, 
• Potion of Speed

The pseudo-dragon might be an ally against the tribesmen due to its N(G) alignment, but even if a party hears a rumour of such a thing existing how would they find a 1½' long creature in a 6 MILE hex which is, as mentioned previously, bloody huge? They would need magic, of course.

In any case, its treasure consists of gems:

2 x Aquamarine (500 gp), Black Pearl (500 gp), 2 x Bloodstone (50 gp), Blue Quartz (10 gp), Carnelian (50 gp), Deep Blue Spinel (500 gp), Fiery Yellow Corundum (1000 gp), Freshwater Pearl (10 gp), Lapis Lazuli (10 gp), 2 x Red-brown Spinel (100 gp), Tourmaline (100 gp), Turquoise (10 gp), 2 x Zircon (50 gp)  for a total of 3590gp.

So, there it is. A small campaign map into which to place your first dungeon and a hex fleshed out with some tougher opponents for later. Roll up the rest of the encounters, add a few settlements (I'd go with 0204 for the major one) and maybe a patron sending the party on their first expedition.

Get a ring binder or some electronic equivalent (or my Campaign Map Book!) and use a page for each hex, noting down what the PCs do in each which may affect other inhabitants and their views and actions in response.

If you can, once the ball is rolling get someone to role-play the leaders of particularly strong lairs - whether large groups of bandits or individual intelligent monsters. Then you'll get some use out of all those hexes you rolled up and someone else will do some of the work for you!

*Actually, Dad was evacuated during the war off the top of the map, but that was a bit exceptional.

The Post-Rationalised Universe, or: What would Dave Do?

The First DM

The wilderness adventure was a problem for players from the outset of D&D and reflected its semi-random collection of influences and cavalier approach to explanation and layout. The outdoor encounter tables in the original game includes various Martian creatures such as Tharks and White Martians, none of which are detailed in the game. Encounters are sub-divided into eight types: Animals (sub divided by terrain), Men (likewise), Flyers, Giants (including kobolds etc., the origin of the ranger's humanoid enemy list, although it includes ents and some other "lawful" monsters), swimmers, dragons, undead, and lycanthropes.

It's a fairly reasonable list until these last two categories which seem a bit specialized. Combining them with the terrain gives the final chance for an encounter to be drawn from a specific type, so undead constitute ¼ of all swamp encounters, and lycanthropes ¼ of those in woods.

Number appearing is given in volume 2 (Monsters and Treasure) and are more or less as seen in the AD&D Monster Manual, although the original note to this stat is that it should be adjusted to the party (in some way).

Anyway, the booklets give very little specific guidance on placement and the move into AD&D compounded this at least in the context of wilderness encounters. Reading the DMG and the MM together always leaves me with two impressions: that there's something missing, and that the wilderness is so hostile as to be out of bounds for at least 4 character levels and even then to be Russian Roulette until average party level reaches the teens.

OD&D: The Missing Bits

What's missing from the DMG is Dave Arneson. Arneson eventually published his notes in Judges Guild's "The First Fantasy Campaign" book and map. Within this he explains how he placed monsters both underground and in the wilderness. There is evidence that Gygax used these notes when preparing the various appendices of the DMG—if you ever wondered why the dungeon random monster level table conflates dungeon levels 2 and 3, it's because that's what Dave did.

In the AD&D game, it is repeatedly stated that random determination at encounter time is a backstop for not having prepared a monster population, but no guidelines are given for how to go about this in any detail and the impression is that the DM simply decides based on their personal vision of What's Going On in their world. Which is fine. but there is a very old school alternative method: Roll Randomly and Then Explain It.

The basic idea of RRTEI is that you roll for something completely without preconceptions of what is "right"; look at the result and reject it only, only in extreme cases; then adjust all the already-compiled information to make the new result fit better with it (this is the "explain it" part). This constructs a web of interconnected locations and ideas which magically become a pre-existing plot.

This new plot can remain undiscovered and static for years until a party wander into the area, or it can be dynamic and imply things which cause the party to be drawn in. Use of the treasure types, random fortresses, and of course monsters can come together to suggest quests or rumours which can reach the PC's ears and spur action; and the existence of pre-determined encounter areas will allow meaningful answers to divinations and sage-enquiries. Once the players start to interact with the randomly generated the threads from nearby areas can start to be woven into the pattern.

RRTEI is the "non occult" force to which Gygax refers on page 87 of the DMG:

It is no exaggeration to state that the fantasy world builds itself, almost as if the milieu actually takes on a life and reality of its own. This is not to say that an occult power takes over. It is simply that the interaction of judge and players shapes the bare bones of the initial creation into something far larger. It becomes fleshed out, and adventuring breathes life into a make believe world. Similarly, the geography and history you assign to the world will suddenly begin to shape the character of states and peoples. Details of former events will become obvious from mere outlines of the past course of things. Surprisingly, as the personalities of player characters and non-player characters in the milieu are bound to develop and become almost real, the nations and states and events of a well-conceived AD&D world will take on even more of their own direction and life. What this all boils down to is that once the campaign is set in motion, you will become more of a recorder.

Back to the wilderness (I'll talk about the dungeons in a later post). Arneson's system is fairly simple (I'll assume hexes, although he also used squares):

1. Generate terrain, including rivers,
2. Roll for population of each terrain hex. This is the semi-permanent population and is effectively the number of lairs in the hex.
3. Randomly roll, based on terrain, for the inhabiting monster of each lair and the population as given in the MM.
4. Roll 1d6x10 for each lair; when encountered this will be the base percentage not in the lair.
5. Starting with one group of monsters which are not in the lair, roll 1d6: on 1-5 the monsters are that distance (in miles) from the lair; on a 6 the group is divided into two groups and the DM re-rolls. Direction from the lair is given by a d6 and groups placed in the same direction and distance can be assumed to be near enough to each other to hear any attack on the other. If one group rolls three 6's then it is assumed to more than be one day's travel from the lair; and if a group is placed on a hostile (to it) lair then it is instead placed back at its own lair where it will arrive shortly after any PC encounter to report its findings.

Probably more use than
the TSR version

Arneson used 10m hexes and this is larger than the more common modern 6m or 5m hexes and much smaller than the normal campaign-sized hexes of 30 or 36 miles. This matters a bit as one thing that doesn't scale well is time - a 10 mile hex with 2 encounters in it requires longer to clear out than a 5 mile hex, potentially four times as long. When the PCs are away from base and possibly relying on limited supplies of food and/or magic then this makes a difference.

For a 100m² area, Arneson rolled 1d6 for the number of lairs, counting a 6 as "empty", for an average of 2½ encounter areas per 100m². By the power of maths we can determine that this means that about 98% of wilderness square miles are free of lairs and from that we can work back to a 6m hex (31m²) and we have about a 60% chance of an empty hex and we want an average of .775 (2½*(31/100)). That looks like a d10 to me - 1 to 4 is that number of lairs; otherwise empty giving an average of 1 lair per hex and a 60% chance of nothing at all.

Using the tables in the DMG for temperate and subtropical wilderness, let's populate these seven hexes generated using the random terrain table on p173.

Hex 1 (plain): inhabited, single dwelling of 1 person; No lairs
Hex 2 (pond/plain): uninhabited, no lairs.
Hex 3 (plain): uninhabited, no lairs.
Hex 4 (marsh): uninhabited, 3 lairs: 3 owlbears, no treasure OB1 in lair (30%), OB2 3 miles to SE, OB3 1 mile to NW; 140 Gnolls, 6000cp, 12 gems, potions of rainbow hues, ESP, delusion, and love. 85 in lair (20%) out of lair one mile to NE; 2 giant constrctor snakes close together (0% in lair).
Hex 5 (plain): uninhabited, no lairs.
Hex 6 (plain): uninhabited, 1 lair: 6 trolls, 8000sp, 1000gp, 3 jewels, 7 gems, 5 in lair (40%) and 1 5 miles to the NW.
Hex 7 (plain): uninhabited, no lairs.

So, hex 1's encounter table is simply the inhabitant of the dwelling, Hexes 2, 3, 5, and 6 have no settled encounters (we'll look at this below), hex 4 encounters can be with: a single owlbear (30% the one in lair; otherwise equal chances of either other one), a gnoll group (80%) or the gnoll lair (20%), or the snakes. Each monster type has an equal chance of appearing (e.g., 1-2: Owlbear, 3-4: gnolls; 5-6: snakes). Hex 6 encounters will be with a group of trolls (40%) or a lone troll.

Encounters with monsters not in lair will occur in the direction listed from the centre of the hex containing the lair (you could specifically place the lair and go from there, but that's more work).

Ignore the horse

The Inhabitant
Going back to hex 1 and its lone inhabitant, I think that's worth a roll on the castle table which gives a small walled castle with keep and another roll indicates the inhabitant is a 9th level fighter.

Skipping over to page 100 we get more detail on this fighter: chaotic good, super-rich, old and rather ragged, sober, friendly, easy-going but rather anti-intellectual, vengeful, aesthetic, brave, driven, miserly, irreligious, with an interest in history.

Rolling on the table for Men, we find that he has Scale Mail +1, shield +1, +2 short sword, and a +4 spear. However, based on decisions below, I'm going to give him plate mail armour (or the best available non-magical armour in your campaign) when defending and leave the scale mail for when he's outside and needs the extra movement that magical armour allows.

His stats, modified for age: Str 11, Int 7, Wis 17, Con 13, Dex 11, Cha 13, Com 14, hp: 45, AC: 1 (3+2), combat level of 13 or 12 (spear or sword). Mv 6"

Okay, that's the rolls, here's the explanation: An old (64 year) lord still inhabits the remains of his ancestral home where his family were wiped out years before by some awful plague of which he was the only survivor, albeit weakened and never able to regain his former physical prowess. Dispite all this and the passing years, he remains a hansom and tall figure quite capable of turning the odd female head.

Convinced that there was some unnatural source for the disease he has spent the decades since trying to locate the entity responsible. Although the castle contains the family's total wealth in its well-protected dungeon, he does not care about it except insofar that it can buy him progress in his hunt. However, its usefulness for this purpose means that he is loath to leave it unguarded but although still a powerful fighter he is unable to eliminate the major local threat of the Gnolls. Indeed, the recent arrival of a group of trolls has greatly worried him—although the two groups might not aid each other the simple presence of them has made it harder than ever for him to hunt for food and his sleep is rarely undisturbed as both groups are active at night. If you've seen Omega Man or any of the other adaptations of I am Legend, that might give you some ideas for his life-style. The space between the keep and the rather tumble-down outer wall is filled with traps and he has several well disguised secret entrances which are too small for either trolls or gnolls.

What Sir Cowden (rolled a name from my local collection of names) wants right now is some allies that he can trust at least enough to help him move against either the gnolls or the trolls. He will not throw money at passing parties just to get their help, however, and will instead attempt to befriend them and evaluate their alignments and otherwise come to some agreement that will not cost him cash. The family treasure is, in his head, only to be spent on avenging that family or rewarding those that help him complete this task. He has pared his needs down to the minimum needed to survive while keeping his hope alive. He will only offer to join a party if they first help him eliminate the gnolls (he judges the trolls too stupid to be able to break into the castle's vaults if he leaves it for any length of time).

In conversation, he will always focus on a party's most charismatic fighter and will regard magic users as little more than supporting artillery to be directed by the fighters, and clerics as medical staff; he will assume that all divination rolls are unreliable and pounce on any evidence that backs this up. Thieves will, of course, be treated with the utmost suspicion, but otherwise he is relaxed and generally assumes the best of humans and demi-humans.

The old lord's hospitality will be stretched by any party but he will do his best to feed and water them, and will certainly replace any broken normal weapons from the castle's armoury if the party seem to need such. He will light the fire in the great hall with something of an air of excitement and PCs will note the armourial shield over the fireplace which depicts: on a field of gold, a spear proper on a bend of green. Under the shield, mounted horizontally, is a spear which those characters who spend any time looking at these things will notice is actually the spear depicted on the family arms. This is the +4 spear ("Avant") which was the symbol of the Silverwind family, of whom Cowden is the last scion. The family motto translates as "To Speak Light; to Silence Darkness".

Sir Cowden has a "% in lair" of 75%—all night, and about 50% during the day. The castle is easily seen during the day and there is essentially no chance of stumbling across it, but at night any encounter with Sir Cowden will be at the castle and the normal method for castle encounters should be followed.

The Gnolls
The gnolls consist of a fyrd of 170 warriors and a further 85 females and 340 females in the ruins (this is a roll from the MM entry for gnolls) of an old village. They have no guard animals but do have a selection of 25 slaves. The group speak orc and hobgoblin well enough to converse simple (usually violent) ideas.

The party in the field has 4 squabbling leader types (16hp each) with it, and the lair contains a further four who do little while there except bully the females and children, eat, and sleep. In addition there is a chief (22hp, AC 3, 4HD/CL 6, +2 damage bonus) with 11 guards (20hp, AC 4, 3HD, +1 damage bonus).

The gnolls recently raided a caravan and made off with a case of four potions which they have not identified yet. Several of the prisoners are from the caravan, including an apprentice alchemist who can read the markings on the potion bottles; the gnolls have no idea about this. Several of the slaves will claim that there would be a reward for returning them safely to civilization. This may or may not be true; it may even be why the PCs are out here in the first place.

Art: Wendy Pini

The Trolls
The troll lair is a simple arch under an old bridge over a stream. Their hp are 36, 30, 28, 23, 21, 21 (roll for which one is out of the lair). Like many monsters, they collect treasure for no better reason than they know that it harms those they take it off. All of the gold and half of the silver they have is in the form of a collection of small (roughly 3 inch high) figures of deities and their servants from the pantheon of your choice. The workmanship is good but nothing special and the figures will only reach their bullion value. The figures were in a set of wooden display/transportation cases which are scattered about under the bridge but still in usable condition and inspection of these will suggest that 7 figures (of 56 - 16 gold, 40 silver) are missing from the collection. The remaining 4000sp is in recent coinage.

The figures may have some religious significance which would prompt a reward being posted, or a cleric to be sent to look for them along with a party of his or her adventuring associates.

I think he's seen us

The Owlbears
The owlbear nest contains four young which are 60% grown (3HD) as well as a single adult. The three adults' hp are: 23, 20, 20, and the young are 17, 11, 11, 9. Their nest is a pile of branches and leaves on a slight rise in the swamp land.

The Snakes
The snakes are simply giant constrictor snakes hanging around in branches of scrubby trees in the marsh, waiting for something to walk under their coils. In any encounter only one will initially be met, the second one arriving within d4 rounds of the first combat attack (or spell) which makes a noise.

Hp: 31, 16

Expansions

Having rolled all this up, I feel that the gnolls and the trolls are likely to have encountered each other. I generally assume that monsters have reasonably well explored a radius around their lairs up to their move rate as miles, so the trolls' 12" and the gnolls' 9" indicates a substantial overlap (see fig). A reaction roll of 62 suggests that the groups are not in conflict but nor are they cooperating; the trolls are strong but the large number of gnolls is enough to keep a balance of power. Since they have no common enemy, they keep themselves to themselves.

The fate of Sir Cowden's family and the gnolls' deserted village suggest that the plague was more wide-spread than just the castle, so I'd pencil in some major disease event and at this point I'll also commit to Cowden's suspicions being correct and that some daemon-worshipper was behind it. I'd also add a few more deserted villages in the area to give an attentive party hints that something bad happened here thirty years or so ago. To give the plot a bit more room to develop, I'll assume that the perpetrator is still alive somewhere and that his/her intention was to wipe out not only the family but the whole of their estate and that discovering that one of the core members of the family still lives would be of as much interest to them as their existence would be to Sir Cowden. Whoever they are, money was not the motive.

The final thing is the question of encounters in "empty" hexes. As mentioned, I assume a certain range for monsters so I could construct tables based on the chance that one of the listed populations are encountered outside their "home hex" but for now I'd just roll on a standard random monster table based on terrain. Note, however, that such monsters are by definition not in lair and therefore consist of 10-60% of the listed populations unless the type never lairs.

Notes
I've tried to set things up neutrally so that a neutral or even evil party have something to do here, including setting the gnolls and the trolls against each other as well as against Sir Cowden.

I've also avoided overruling dice rolls even when they didn't produce something I had in mind based on earlier rolls. For example, the gnolls do not have any hyenaoid guards. The problem with such interference is that one tends to select the same sort of things each time and unless it's the only way to avoid an encounter being completely dull, it's best to leave such things to be genuine surprises. The same goes double for treasure types; overruling those tends to lead to magic inflation such as we see in the G series.

Speaking of treasure types, the monsters with treasure were all in reasonably substantial numbers so I didn't have any problems giving them the values rolled; if they had been low in numbers then I would have reduced the treasure.

Finally, notice that prisoners are a god-send when inventing reasons for things to be where they are or why a PC party might hear about an encounter area.

Treasure
The treasure was rolled using my treasure type generator and the full lists were:

Gnolls
12 gems: 
 Gem stone (Oriental Topaz) 1000gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Onyx) 50gp 
 Gem stone (Black Opal) 1000gp 
 Fancy stone (Jet) 100gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Star Rose Quartz) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Chalcedony) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Spinel, green) 200gp 
 Ornimental stone (Malachite) 7gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Star Rose Quartz) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Moonstone) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Citrine) 50gp 
 Ornimental stone (Rhodochrosite) 10gp 

 Potion of Rainbow Hues
 Potion of ESP 
 Potion of Delusion (cursed)

 Philter of Love

Trolls
 8000sp 
 1000gp 
7 gems: 
 Semi-precious stone (Chrysoprase) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Moonstone) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Garnet, brown-green) 100gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Black Pearl) 500gp 
 Fancy stone (Chrysoberyl) 200gp 
 Fancy stone (Spinel, red) 100gp 
 Ornimental stone (Bonded Agate) 10gp 

3 jewels: 
 3000gp silver with gems coffer
 1000gp wrought silver goblet

 1800gp wrought gold goblet

The Silverwind Family Treasure Vault
 18000cp 
 50000gp 
83 gems: 
 Fancy stone (Amber) 160gp 
 Fancy stone (Alexandrite) 200gp 
 Fancy stone (Garnet, brown-green) 100gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Black Pearl) 500gp 
 Ornimental stone (Moss Agate) 45gp 
 Ornimental stone (Bonded Agate) 20gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Aquamarine) 800gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Smoky Quartz) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Moonstone) 75gp 
 Fancy stone (Amber) 100gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Sardonyx) 50gp 
 Ornimental stone (Turquoise) 10gp 
 Fancy stone (Garnet, brown-green) 100gp 
 Ornimental stone (Blue Quartz) 10gp 
 Gem stone (Diamond) 2000gp 
 Fancy stone (Tourmaline) 100gp 
 Ornimental stone (Malachite) 10gp 
 Ornimental stone (Malachite) 10gp 
 Ornimental stone (Turquoise) 10gp 
 Ornimental stone (Obsidian) 10gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Peridot) 500gp 
 Fancy stone (Garnet, red) 100gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Carnelian) 55gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Garnet, violet) 500gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Peridot) 500gp 
 Ornimental stone (Hematite) 20gp 
 Ornimental stone (Eye Agate) 10gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Sardonyx) 50gp 
 Gem stone (Emerald) 1000gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Carnelian) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Tourmaline) 100gp 
 Ornimental stone (Turquoise) 35gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Carnelian) 50gp 
 Gem stone (Black Opal) 1000gp 
 Gem stone (Oriental Amethyst) 1000gp 
 Ornimental stone (Blue Quartz) 35gp 
 Fancy stone (Jet) 100gp 
 Ornimental stone (Hematite) 10gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Aquamarine) 500gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Jasper) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Smoky Quartz) 60gp 
 Gem stone (Oriental Amethyst) 1000gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Black Pearl) 500gp 
 Gem stone (Diamond) 1000gp 
 Fancy stone (Chrysoberyl) 100gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Rock Crystal) 60gp 
 Fancy stone (Alexandrite) 100gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Topaz) 500gp 
 Ornimental stone (Bonded Agate) 10gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Bloodstone) 50gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Moonstone) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Garnet, brown-green) 200gp 
 Ornimental stone (Blue Quartz) 10gp 
 Fancy stone (Spinel, green) 100gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Black Pearl) 500gp 
 Fancy stone (Amethyst) 400gp 
 Fancy stone (Amber) 100gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Chrysoprase) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Chrysoberyl) 100gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Bloodstone) 50gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Aquamarine) 500gp 
 Ornimental stone (Lapis Lazuli) 5gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Bloodstone) 50gp 
 Ornimental stone (Obsidian) 7gp 
 Ornimental stone (Azurite) 10gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Aquamarine) 500gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Black Pearl) 800gp 
 Ornimental stone (Bonded Agate) 10gp 
 Ornimental stone (Rhodochrosite) 10gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Spinel, deep blue) 500gp 
 Fancy stone (Spinel, green) 450gp 
 Ornimental stone (Rhodochrosite) 10gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Chalcedony) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Coral) 100gp 
 Gem stone (Star Ruby) 1000gp 
 Fancy precious stone (Spinel, deep blue) 650gp 
 Gem stone (Emerald) 1000gp 
 Ornimental stone (Blue Quartz) 10gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Chrysoprase) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Spinel, red) 400gp 
 Ornimental stone (Obsidian) 15gp 
 Semi-precious stone (Star Rose Quartz) 50gp 
 Fancy stone (Alexandrite) 100gp 

40 jewels: 
 6000gp gold with gems bracelet
 8000gp silver with gems coffer *exceptional gem*
 1200gp wrought gold chain
 3000gp silver with gems statuette
 1000gp wrought gold chain
 1400gp wrought gold decanter
 6000gp silver with gems statuette *exceptional gem*
 1900gp platinum anklet
 600gp wrought gold chain
 6000gp gold with gems statuette
 6000gp platinum with gems medallion
 6000gp gold with gems pin
 2100gp platinum pin
 1400gp coral coffer
 500gp wrought silver clasp
 1200gp wrought gold necklace
 6000gp gold with gems ring
 5000gp platinum with gems seal
 2200gp jade goblet
 2000gp gold with gems bracelet
 10000gp gold with gems chain *exceptional gem*
 7000gp gold with gems goblet
 8000gp gold with gems fob
 400gp ivory medal
 1200gp wrought silver and gold pin
 1600gp coral chain
 1500gp jade bracelet
 3000gp silver with gems clasp
 700gp wrought silver and gold idol
 600gp wrought silver chain
 5000gp silver with gems chain
 900gp wrought gold goblet
 1200gp coral pin
 5000gp platinum with gems choker
 8000gp platinum with gems pin
 2100gp platinum medallion
 1600gp wrought gold medal
 23000gp gold with gems bracelet *exceptional gem*
 600gp wrought silver and gold bracelet

 600gp wrought gold brooch

This is a Type H treasure representing the total treasure of an exceptionally wealthy and powerful family and should be hidden, protected by traps, and potent neutral or good-aligned monsters. I would suggest at least one iron or stone golem and perhaps a pair of caryatid columns, perhaps a Guardian Daemon, and various symbols which do not affect any true descendant of the Silverwind family as well as more mundane locks.

Any of the large-value gems or jewellery here could be the subject of a rumour in the civilized world which could send a party out in this direction; the hoard as a whole could be the subject of treasure maps based on leaked information from the days when the castle was full of people and life. Naturally, anyone trying to get this stuff away by land will attract attention, especially if they take the 50,000gp (nearly 2¼ tons of gold, or 4½ cubic feet)

Loyalty Bonus

The only "core system" I didn't cover back in the early days of the blog when I was doing the introduction to AD&D posts was, or perhaps were, the twin topics of loyalty and morale.

The reason for that is that it's been a long time since I used them as written. In fact the loyalty rules contain a note to the effect that an experienced DM shouldn't really need them and probably the same goes for the morale section. But, as with so much, it's worth going back and re-calibrating every so often, so here's a summary of the loyalty and morale rules.

Twin Peeks
Looking at morale first, we're given a system to decide whether a particular opponent will stand and fight when the going gets tough. It's certainly worth noting that this starts at a base of 50% for creatures of less than 2 hit dice if they are intelligent. What if they're not intelligent? That's not stated but I'll come back to it below.

There's a list of fairly obvious to make a morale check - 25% of party killed, leader runs away etc. - and a set of possible modifiers. To make the morale check, the DM rolls the dice, adds the modifiers and subtracts the base morale of the figure. If the result is positive then the creature falls back, disengages, flees, or surrenders depending on how high the result is.

On the loyalty side, things seem fairly similar: there is a base score of 50% modified not by hit dice but by the charisma of whomever the loyalty is owed to, a set of occasions on which to test loyalty, and a bunch of modifiers.

Sadly, as is often the case, there is a pointless difference too: loyalty modifiers are added to the loyalty score before rolling, although they could be subtracted from the dice of course, and any score over the loyalty score indicates a fail. Although there is no grading of the degree of failure as there is for morale, I would suggest that the DM should take it into account.

Loyalty
Loyalty has a broader scope than morale. Loyalty can be tested by a bribe or by temptation when left to guard valuables and so forth. It's also subject to many more modifiers than morale and it's quite possible to end up with loyalty scores of 200% and more if a high-CHA character associates for a long time with henchmen or troops who are treated correctly. Simply being lawful good gives a bonus of 15%, and a racial preference gives another +20%, which means that paladins inspire a base loyalty score of 115%+ right off the starting blocks when dealing with humans who are of a compatible alignment.

On the subject of which, there is the question of compatible alignments and a strange table on DMG p 37. If the henchman (or whatever) has an alignment "1 place removed" from their liege then there is no modification. 2 places gives a mod of -15% and three one of -35%. But what is a "place"? The examples given are bizarre: LE<->LN is 1 place; LE<->LG is 2; but LE<->CG is 3. So what would LE<->CN be? I can only assume that the last row in the table should read "3 or more places removed" and that neutral is meant to be 2 places from LG and only 1 from CN.

It is possible for substantial loyalty penalties to be incurred, but generally they are all for things which a LG character would never do, so it's a fairly sure thing that if a paladin is leading a group of NPCs then those NPCs will come under "Fanatical - will serve unquestioningly and lay down own life if necessary without hesitation", probably even the chaotic evil ones (which is as good a reason as any to introduce a massive penalty for alignments which are opposite).

Loyal to whom?
So who is loyalty owed to? It's not defined specifically but the DMG does repeat the fact that the rules apply to hirelings as well as henchmen and seems to intend that the rules be used for any "associated character". I take this to mean those which are paid by or recruited by a character directly to to whom the liege character has paid specific attention to.

In a combat situation, I would also apply it to any friendly figures within a radius of the character's CHA stated as scaled inches (ie, 12" for a charisma score of 12), assuming that they are not being commanded by someone else and can be communicated with to some degree. In the case of an army on the field of battle, perhaps the normal (non-mercenary) soldier could have a score calculated from a base 0% instead of 50% and capped at 90%.

Morale
Morale is a much simpler system and hardly has any more detail than covered in the overview above, but it's worth looking at some typical scores.

A bog-standard man-at-arms has a morale score of 50% and a morale check with a 5% penalty is triggered when any figure has lost ¼ of its hit points. Since a man-at-arms can't have more than 7hp, this means that just 2hp damage gives a 55% chance that the figure will try to withdraw from combat to some degree. Orcs are the same, and gnolls have only a 5% increase on that.

A troll, on the other hand, has a base morale of 81%. Assuming that non-fire/acid damage doesn't bother a troll much, then even facing a superior force which is striking twice as often as the troll means that the troll will only fail morale 19% of the time and will never panic or surrender unless the attacking party are really showing no signs of wear and tear.

But still - 19% isn't peanuts and the morale system's tables allow for a rout to set in as each deserter grants a 15% penalty for those left behind, so three trolls will not last three times as long as one before retreating.

Morale makes a huge difference to combat, especially at low levels where it's needed most to soften the opposition that a party might face. Ignoring morale issues is certainly a cause of many low-level party wipe-outs.

So what about those unintelligent monsters? Well, it depends on what one means by unintelligent. My rule of thumb is that animal intelligence means a morale of 50% flat regardless of HD while true non-intelligence effectively means infinite morale, and certain particularly aggressive animals such as bull elephants, giant wolverines, water buffalo, and females with young, should get the normal hit dice bonus.

On that subject, what about loyalty and unintelligent creatures? Well, clearly animals can have loyalty but I'd say that most fungus can't. Most of the loyalty modifiers are, in fact, reasonably applicable to any creature that is capable of personalized memory of individuals and I would include the alignment mods (see below).

Conflict of Self Interest
The place where loyalty and morale come together is in combat. The DMG simply states that creatures which have loyalty use it instead of their morale score in morale checks (assuming that they have been ordered to fight, of course). That's fine but there's the chance that morale is actually higher than loyalty, what then?

The simple answer is that an NPC fights for themselves first (morale) and then for their leader (loyalty). If they don't want to fight then they will only do so if commanded to do so by someone they will obey. So, when morale breaks, check using loyalty.

For example, a party with three NPC men-at-arms (Larry, Curly, and Harpo) is in a dungeon and get into a fight with a substantial force of hobgoblins. The MaA have a loyalty to the party leader of just 40% and a morale of 50%.

On the second round of combat Curley is dropped to half their hp and makes a morale roll (at +15) of 70 - disengage and retreat. The leader orders Curly to stand firm and he makes a second check using his loyalty score (but with the same +15), rolling a 30. Curly's morale has broken but his faithfulness keeps him going.

On the third round, Larry is killed. Curly's morale has already broken so he rolls another check using his loyalty score (now at +30: 10% for a quarter of the party being lost, 10% for a friendly figure being killed, and 10% for taking casualties without inflicting any) with a total roll of 83, Curly throws down his weapon and flees. Harpo, meanwhile makes a check against his morale score (at +30% too; Curly's desertion won't have any effect until next round) and rolls 78% (disengage) and then 93 (surrender); taking the best of these means that Harpo attempts to disengage while Curly legs it.

If these guy's retreat is blocked (say, by other members of the party) then the only chance is to talk them down, making another loyalty check, but this will disrupt the party and another fail here may lead to fighting between the would-be flyers and the rest of the party.

Alignment
There are modifiers to loyalty for alignment. I know from experience that the first thing a would-be Evil leader will claim is that they are not going to act evil and so should have the "neutral" modifier of ±0%. Well, as previously mentioned, alignment is an actual force in the AD&D world and as such I regard these modifiers as being unavoidable. People just sort of know, even if they can't quite put their finger on what the problem is.

Evil has many advantages in that it's always easier to be destructive than to be helpful and careful and the alignment modifiers to loyalty can be a strong boost to Good characters.

Meanwhile, Back in the Real World
At the table, of course, all this is baloney. There's no way any sane DM would sit and add up and subtract all the possible modifiers that might apply and still less track the changes (-1% per living enemy hit die?).

But the base scores are not too hard to quickly tot up and note on a stat-line for a monster or NPC and after that most of the intent can be captured by making reasonable guesses at modifiers and applying them ad hoc. If you roll 90 for morale when the party are low on hit points, it's likely that the NPC has decided to quit or even change sides if their loyalty breaks too. You don't need to worry about every little mod.

And in that spirit, you really don't need to use percentage scores for all of this either. The PHB mentions giving a +1 to morale in the bless spell and by +2 in the 4th level illusionist emotion spell. These clearly are signs that Gygax was intending to divide all these numbers by 5 and use a d20 instead. I suggest you follow suit and forget about the little ones like the hit dice modifiers to loyalty.

Some Spells
Banner (conjuration/summoning)
Cleric Lv3
Components: V,M
Casting Time: 1r
Save: None
Range: Touch
Duration: 1 turn/lv
Area of Effect: target's charisma+1" radius per level

Banner causes a spectral flag, pennant, banner, or otherwise culturally appropriate image to appear above the character touched. This expands the range of the character's charisma for the purposes of loyalty scores. Any friendly figure within that area is treated as having a normally calculated loyalty score to the target of the spell. If there is a conflict, whether because of another use of this spell or simply that the NPC already has a loyalty to someone else, then the higher charisma is the one which gains the NPC's loyalty with ties broken by the level of the charismatic character and finally by dice rolling. Once the spell ends, previous loyalties are restored.

The material component is a finely made duplicate of the image which is to be displayed. This must contain on it some identifying and inspiring mark associated with the target character.

This spell is generally only available to clerics of war gods and leader-type deities (e.g., Odin and Tyr; Zeus, Ares, and Athena; but not Thor or Pan).

Talisman (conjuration/summoning)
Cleric 5th level
Components: V, M
Casting time: 1 turn
Save: None
Range: Touch
Duration: 12hrs
Area of Effect: 1"/ level

Talisman causes the cleric's holy symbol (the material component) to radiate a sense of well-being and security to all those of the same faith as the cleric (same deity or same pantheon). It grants those within the range of the spell +10% (or +2) to their morale scores and -2 to those that they fight.

For Good clerics, the symbol also radiates a bright light such that monsters which do not like sunlight will fight at -1 even at night (vampires and the like are not damaged but do receive -1 to combat rolls). Evil symbols generate a gloom such that evil monsters can fight normally even in daylight (vampires and so forth included) and those without infra- or ultra-vision suffer -1 on ranged attacks only.

Protection from Evil/Good will ward out these effects as appropriate, assuming that the casting cleric is Good or Evil.

The area of effect is centred on the symbol and continues even if it is taken from the cleric, but no cleric can have more than one of these spells in operation at a time; later ones fail upon casting.

Magical items which duplicate the talisman spell power must take the form of holy symbols and never have charges. They are often associated with the tombs of saints (of all alignments).

Oh, Yeah, Psionics.

Monsters! Monsters from
the antiquated Psychotherapy
School!

Psionics, psionics, psionics; what are we to do with you?

Psionics made their first real appearance in Suppliment III to D&D "Eldrich Wizardry" (the one with the naked blonde lying on the alter - how things would change once the game hit mainstream!) in 1976. I say "real" because the mind flayer had been written up a year or more earlier in the first issue of The Strategic Review, including the table for their fearsome "Mind Blast" which would become the "Psionic Attack Upon Non-Psionic Creature" table on p78 of AD&D's DMG several years later.

The fact that the mind flayer's attack would never be formally defined in AD&D as being the same as "psionic blast" is symptomatic of the mess that was created by one of the worst systems of nomenclature in the game (or any game).

I've never not used psionics, but I've never pushed it either. In practise I use it for monsters and little else but even here there are many difficulties. In rough outline the system in the PHB works something like this:

The idea central is that psionic creatures have a pair of point pools from which to pay for various attack and defence modes. An attack using a mind thrust costs 4 attack points; a defence utilizing a mental barrier uses 3 defence points.

In addition to these attacks and defence options, many psionic beings have the ability to do various psionic disciplines. These have a charge listed in points, so animal telepathy costs a point per round, and this is the first source of confusion (for the player at least) - in fact this cost is applied to both the attack and defence pools, so animal telepathy actually costs 2 points per round in a sense.

These double-sized points are referred to in the PHB as "strength points", but there is also this marvellous piece of text on p110:

The total is the psionic strength of the individual; it is the strength for attack and for defence. Psionic ability is double psionic strength, i.e. 10 to 344. One-half of psionic ability is attack strength, one half is defence strength.

Okay, what?  So, if a character has an attack strength 120 (and therefore a defence strength of 120) then they have a psionic ability of 240. Psionic ability is never changed; it is simply a measure of the characters "rested" maximum scores. Each strength point expended using a psionic discipline will reduce both attack and defence, so in terms of the costs given in the PHB this character will never be able to expend more than 120 points on disciplines, perhaps much less if they have expended points on attacking and defending.

In a burst of poor design, psionic strength recovers at 3 points per hour of light activity (walking etc). So that's 1½ points to attack and 1½ points to defence totals. Very useful.

Well, anyway, that seems just about understandable from the players' point of view. Sadly it gets a bit more complex for the DM.

First up is the psionic combat table. This is indexed by "total psionic strength". Right - is that attack strength or defence strength or your total current total of jumbo-sized "strength points"? It seems to be attack strength, as the table for attacks on defenceless psionics is more explicit and says "attack strength".

That's also backed up by the statement that psionic attacks on non-psionics (ie, psychic blast against normal creatures) is only available if the attacker has 100 attack points currently available; such an attack costs 20 points according to the PHB. These numbers become important when we look at the monster manual.

Dead in d4 rounds, baby.

First up is the ur-psionic, the mind flayer. The attack/defence modes given in the MM are B and FGH. This has led many DMs to think that the monster has the psionic attack mode of Mind Thrust in addition to some special ability called the Mind Blast which is unrelated to the psychic blast. This seems unlikely in the extreme, given the history of the Psionic Attack Against Non-Psionic table and the correspondence between the area of effect of the supposed mind blast and the psionic blast. Possibly the confusion of using the letter B derives from the table on page 8 of EW which lists the attack modes with psionic blast second (because the list is in order of maximum range) or perhaps it's just a simple typo with no particular cause.

Monster Manual monsters generally have an entry in their stats for "Psionic Ability". For mind flayers this ranges from 241 to 340, so 290 is average giving an attack strength of 145, which is quite powerful but means that the average lone flayer can only make two psionic blast attacks on non-psionics.

The other classic example of a psionic monster is probably the intellect devourer and it too suffers from an apparent typo in its psionic ability entry. The text for the monster is pretty specific that it has id insinuation (D) and ego whip (C) attack modes, but the listing gives ego whip and psychic crush (E); this should probably be changed to match the text rather than changing the text to match the stats.

Interestingly, the text for the intellect devourer also mentions (as it does in EW) that the monster's "psionic strength" of 200 makes it reasonably easy to engage in psionic combat, cementing the idea that the terms "psionic strength" and "psionic ability" are synonymous. The devourer's attack and defence would work out at 100 each which is, indeed, two classes down from the top level of the psionic combat tables. So it looks like we've really got a handle on this stuff (play "sardonic laughter" track #3 now, if following along with the sound effects disc).

23 Shedu
The shedu was one of the first psionic monsters published which was not evil. It has 3 major and 5 minor psionic disciplines which it performs at 9th level and is able to use all the psionic attack and defence modes.

And a psionic ability of up to 100.

That's a maximum attack strength of 50 (and a minimum of 35). That's not a lot. In fact, it's low enough that it can not affect non-psionics with its psychic blast at all. This might be intentional but the score looks very low to the point that, because of how psionic combat works, the shedu might be better off not being psionic at all. Let's look at the original write up.

Potential Problems
When we look back at Eldrich Wizardry and the original description of the shedu we get a nasty shock - there is another stat called "psychic potential" in addition to attack strength, defense strength, psionic strength, and psionic ability! For the shedu, this is given as "55 to 90" and is almost certainly the origin of the numbers in MM. But the original intent was not that this would be used as the final value, it was simply an input into a formula for calculating psionic strength (ie, the jumbo points value).

The formula was: psychic potential plus (number of disciplines times 2) plus (number of attack and defense modes times 5) gives psionic strength.

For the shedu these bonuses add up to 16+50=66, giving a final psionic ability (in the sense of the mind flayer and the intellect devourer) of 136 to 166. In fact, in EW the shedu had 11 to 18 disciplines (which were not divided into major and minor) so its score there would have ranged from 127 to 176 so the AD&D version is a smaller range but this seems to be more or less the correct value. In EW, the minimum attack strength to affect a non-psionic is 120, so it seems that it is indeed a design intent that shedu can not affect non-psionics.

In EW, psionic potential was also used in the table for attacks on defenceless psionics which was completely redone for AD&D and it remains only in the form of the (unnamed) score on d% which a player makes to determine their character's basic psionic strength before bonuses. It seems that whoever typed up the monster stats did not pay close attention to the complicated terminology and simply copied the value across with some minor changes (perhaps working from a partly annotated EW provided by Gygax).

Looking with a more jaundiced eye at the other MM creatures which first appeared in EW we find that the couatl and ki-rin have suffered from a similar treatment. For ki-rin this equates to a revised range of psionic ability which ranges from 200 to 270.

The couatl has a slightly more complex problem in that we are told that it should have "commensurate attack and defense modes". Well, what the hell does that mean?

In fact, in EW, attack and defense modes were gained in a ratio to the number of psionic disciplines. Those ratios were 1:4/1:3 (attack/defense) for non-fighters and 1:5/1:4 for fighters. The couatl should therefore have one attack and two defense modes determined randomly in AD&D, although in EW they had at least 9 and up to 16 disciplines.

Sticking with the AD&D version, this gives the couatl a psionic ability of 87 to 137. Because of the cumulative effect of having fewer disciplines leading to fewer combat modes, this is quite a drop from EW where the monster had a range of 103 to 187 so you might want to think about boosting it a bit in AD&D.

He's here again, the man
with the child...
Sorry, wrong song

All Pandemonium Breaks Out
The demons (and devils) exhibit yet another problem with the conversion from OD&D to AD&D although it is again obvious that the problem is that someone simply copied numbers across without noticing that the terms were slightly different and had different meanings. However, in this case the problem is probably reversed in that EW is wrong and AD&D is correct (probably by accident).

In EW, the main list of demons' psionic strength is a list on page 38 of their psionic attack strength, and these are the values that we find listed in the MM for their "psionic ability". The nett effect of this is that the demons were demoted from their position as the absolute top-dogs of the psionic world to a slightly junior position behind the very best human practitioners.

In addition to moving the demons down in terms of rank, the change also had a knock on effect in terms of how encounters ran. In EW Type IV, V, and VI can all attack non-psionic opponents with their psionic blast powers; in AD&D, none of them can.

This has a major "flavour" effect in that it means that madness and fear etc. are not associated with demonic encounters in AD&D, whereas they are in late-period OD&D. Look at the results of failing a save against a psychic blast and it's clear that a careless magic user runs a risk of insanity or feeblemind when dealing with things that should not be dealt with. In AD&D this has been mostly swept away by the apparently unintended reduction of demons' psionic abilities.

Now, this has been discussed in a few places, although not usually in the context of the other conversion problems from EW, and the objection has been raised that, for example, giving Yeenoghu a total psionic strength of 600, Orcus 700, and Demogorgon 300 per head is wild-off-the-scale-bonkers.

I agree, but I also think that giving type IV (a demon particularly associated with the mind), type V, and type VI the psionic blast but no chance to use it against humans seems wrong and odd too.

In addition, in AD&D, humans range up to 344 psionic strength, well above all but Orcus. Admittedly, this is exceptional but it is possible.

In OD&D the system for gaining psionic ability (which is not even possible in AD&D) was complicated but it would be possible, just, for a 10th level character to have a score of 190 (if my calculations are correct, which I doubt).

On balance, I think the answer has to be that it was EW that was wrong in the first place and that the table there should have said "Total Psionic Strength" instead of Attack Strength, making the values in the monster manual "correct".

But in truth I don't like either answer. The lower-order demons are too weak in their mental powers - something that they are strongly associated with in myth and legend - but if we double everything then the princes are too powerful. There are balance issues with psychic crush too, if we go that route.

Possibly a better solution is to examine what is missing from the demons (and devils, which were added in AD&D as lawful counterparts to the demons) both in MM and EW: psionic disciplines.

Following the EW formula, we would expect a succubus, for example, to have something like 10 disciplines in OD&D. If we counted majors as double in AD&D, then we could give out 4 minor and 3 major for example.

Again, however, I don't think this captures the feel of the sort of mind-bending powers I associate with demons or devils and many of the disciplines overlap with demonic spell-like powers so it would be hard to give them out without duplication.

In the end, I can live with the demons as they are. I'm not interested in re-writing the whole psionic system and so I tolerate it without encouraging it. I like mind flayers and some of the other psionic monsters, and a psionic NPC now and then can be a nice change from "just another magic user".

Beyond the Monster Manual
Whatever the case, the power scale established in the monster manual for demonic psionic ability is the one followed in MMII, Deities and Demigods, and even Fiend Folio (cursed be its name), which is another reason I shy away from any major change to the demons.

D&DG did however break slightly with the format in MM and gives a psionic class from I to VI. Cthulhlu  is in class I with a range of psionic strength from 326 to 365, 5 minor, and 2 major disciplines. Since Orcus would qualify on the basis of the MM ability score, perhaps that would be appropriate for him too, while our succubus would be class IV with 3 minor and 1 major discipline. I've never tried applying the D&DG values back to the monsters with no listed discipline but it might be worth investigating, especially as this gives much smaller numbers of disciplines than the rather generous OD&D system.

Mrs Columbo? She loves all
that psychic stuff. Me?
I've never understood all
those letters and things.

Just One Last Thing
I mentioned that an average lone mind flayer could probably only make two psychic blast attacks on a non-psionic. At the end of the PHB section on psionics there is a piece entitled "Multiple Psionic Operations" which is seldom discussed. In fact there are a couple of places where the rules allow psionic creatures (mind flayers appear in numbers of 1-4, don't forget) to work together.

The first aspect of multiple psionics is in respect of defence against attacks in an area. Both the intellect fortress and the tower of iron will have an area of effect any psionic within those ranges can defend with the best of their own defenses or any overlapping ones. It does not specify that this is something that the users of the tower or the fortress have a choice in, although the areas covered are small enough that this is unlikely to have an effect in game. Non-psionics also gain substantial bonuses on their saves against psionic blast when inside the area of effect of a tower or fortress. Whether multiple such defenses grant cumulative bonuses is not stated but I presume not.

The other example of psionics sharing on page 117 is split into two aspects: range boosting, and strength boosting. In neither case is it clear how close the participating psionic creatures have to be. In the case of range boosting, I suppose that each creature must be within their own base range of the others, but it could be argued that the boosted range should be used. In any case, each participant adds 50% of the weakest participant's range to the range of the discipline.

As an example of the different ways to interpret this: telepathy has a range of 1 light second, meaning that a single psion on the moon could not communicate with someone on Earth. The question is whether a psion on Earth could communicate with a psion on the moon since the boosted range (1½ light seconds) is in fact enough to cover the distance. This is rather cool, so I think I would allow it but it would also be a reasonable interpretation to say that the two psions would have to be together on the moon to communicate with anyone on the Earth, psion or not (line of sight is an easy restriction to get around in a game with magic, BTW).

The second form of psionic boosting is to add strength points to an "operative" who is engaged in psionic combat (nothing else). Again, there is no guidance about how close together the psions need to be - perhaps they need to hold hands; perhaps they need to be or can be in telepathic communication or perhaps limited by the range of their attack modes; DM's call.

Anyway, assuming that everyone is in range the procedure is that starting at the psion with the lowest psionic strength (that's the jumbo points again) adds one fifth of their score to the next strongest, who adds one fifth of their modified score to the next one and so on. The final operative attacks and defends for the whole group but all are affected by the result of the combat.

Let's look at two mind flayers with 220, 280 strength points distributed between attack and defense as follows:

#1 90/130
#2 80/200

As it stands, neither can affect a part of non-psionic adventurers. But if #2 contributes 56 points to #1 (which are split into 28/28 attack and defence points), then #1 will be able to make another attack, since its attack strength will go up to 118).

Here's another example, this time the above two mind flayers are joined by a fresh one on 160/160 (ie, 320 psionic strength points).

Number one adds 44 points to #2, taking it to 324 (102/222). Number two then adds 65 points to #3 (we round up all fractions). This is halved (losing a point in the process) to give it 32 points on attack and defense taking it to 192/192.

Look at the id insinuation on that!

Let's imagine that these mind flayers then engages a succubus in psionic combat. This costs the lead mind flayer 20 points of attack strength (and the succubus defends with Intellect Fortress, costing her 16 points), while the succubus' return of Id Insinuation (10 point cost) only costs 7 defense points; however, these 7 points are lost from all three mind flayers.

So after the first segment of psionic combat the succubus is down to 90/84 and the mind flayers to 172/185, 80/193, 90/123.

The rules do not say whether this transferral is for a full round or must be re-calculated for each segment of psionic combat but I would suggest the former - the system is bad enough as it is! Since these two combatants have only one attack form each, the combat can be calculated quite "simply".

Too many numbers!

After segment 2: succubus: 80/68; MF: 152/178, 80/186, 90/116
After segment 3: succubus: 70/52; MF: 132/174, 80/183, 90/113
After segment 4: succubus: 60/36; MF: 112/170, 80/179, 90/109
After segment 5: succubus: 50/25; MF: 92/166, 80/175, 90/105
After segment 6: succubus: 40/7  ; MF: 72/164, 80/173, 90/103
After segment 7: succubus: 30/0  ; MF: 52/162, 80/171, 90/101
After segment 8: succubus: coma; MF: 32/160, 80/169, 90/99

What happens at the end of the combat, or the end of the round, is not clear but I'd suggest that any "unused" points are returned to those who donated them. In this case there are none, but if say the lead mind flayer had ended the round on 165/170 then it would have had 5 attack and 10 defence points left from the 32/32 that #2 had donated. A similar system would be used to cascade back to #3 and so on if there were more in the chain.

All of this shows that psionic combat can be a real numbers-grind, although it can be fun for a group that's really into that sort of super-detailed thing. By and large, the vast majority of players have not enjoyed it and many alternatives have been suggested over the years. Perhaps help is at hand in the form of laptops and tablet computers which could automate the numbers to some degree. Time may tell but unless someone does come up with a useful system for automating some of this there's little chance that we'll see an old-school psionics renaissance any day soon.

And that's all I can tell you about AD&D psionics. Some of it may even be right!

Once the Dice are Out of Their Bag, They Must Draw Blood!

This better be worth it

Here's a classic mistake I made recently while running a game. There was a storm, the ship was in trouble. A PC was on deck and I said "give me a Dex roll". They failed....and I had no idea what I wanted to do with this information. I certainly wasn't going to kill the character by throwing them overboard from a boat with low-level characters who had no way of rescuing them in the middle of a heavy sea and strong winds. The character was simply standing on deck for some reason, so there wasn't even a task to interrupt by falling.

Characters do not need to roll for every task, even when things are difficult. If the result of failing is simply "well, I'll get up and try again" or whatever, then the dice roll is pointless. Just tell the player that they succeed, perhaps adding that it was tricky. Want to climb a tree to see where you are? You climb the tree. Ride a horse out of town? Fine. Even a character who can't actually ride should not be forced to roll until they succeed if all that's going to happen is exactly that.

Dice are about risk and as previously mentioned AD&D deals in resources (much like life), so risk is about wasting those resources and if no resource is at risk the dice should stay in their bag. A "resource" can be time, money, hit points, loyalty, the character's life, a henchman's life, personal reputation and goals, or any number of real or abstract possessions. When those things are on the table then there is a reason to get the dice out because then the result is meaningful to the players and there is some thrill of waiting to see the outcome and the relief of a good result and the adapting to the setback of a bad one. If you as DM can't think of any resource which would be lost by a failed roll or gained by a successful one, just narrate some reasonable outcome and press on.

In the case of the ship in the storm, "You're tossed around by the rough seas for about half an hour at which point you hear a horrendous cracking sound as the main mast splits about half way up" (as the damage from the storm accumulated) would have been much better and, if you don't rush it, might even give a player a chance to ask about the mast and whether anyone should be doing anything about the fact that the sails were still unfurled.

It's easy to slip into a habit with dice but always remember that there are resources at the table too: fun, momentum, and play time being key ones. Don't waste them with pointless dice rolling.

AD&D Initiative - The Main Event

Gary Gygax (centre)
Explains Initiative to a Fan (right)
Mike Carr looks on (left)

AD&D initiative is legendary for its incomprehensibility. This is a reputation well-earned but fortunately it is not, unlike some other problem areas, because the rules are simply missing. They are all there; just not necessarily in the right order. So, here they are in a different order. As with the other posts in this introductory notes series, I'm assuming that you have read the relevant sections of the DMG in particular, so I'm not repeating literally every rule here.

Initiative Phase 1: Who's On First?

The most fundamental principle of the initiative system is that those who have lots of initiative commence their actions before those that have less, so the most basic question is to decide which of any two (or more) figures has the most initiative. Initiative is given in this order, from good to bad:

1. Multiple attacks - ether from level, haste, missile weapon use, or monster ability (see below).
2. Dice roll of 1d6 with high being good and reaction modifier applied for missile weapons.
3. Zombies and characters under the effects of a slow spell.

"Multiple attacks" only counts if the character commits to using those multiple attacks this round - simply having the ability to fire a bow twice is not sufficient to give the character initiative if they decide to flee, however being under the effects of a haste spell does qualify automatically. Obviously, more multiple attacks is better than fewer and so three attacks beats two, and four beats three etc.

If several combatants vie in the same bracket then use the d6 roll to break ties and if that's equal then the two figures do in fact act simultaneously. Although groups share a single initiative die each member of the group may have its own modifiers.

So, an exceptional party which contained: Albert (hasted), Bertie (Bow with +1 reaction mod), Clem (normal cleric), and Zombie Dave (a zombie) who rolled a 4 for initiative would have this order of action:

1. Bertie (ties with Albert for number of attacks but has +1 to initiative from Dex)
2. Albert (multiple attacks)
3. Clem (rolls a 4)
4. Bertie's second attack (ties with Albert but has +1 to initiative).
5. Albert's second attack
6. Zombie Dave (is a zombie)

If they faced a party of normal orcs, say, who also rolled a 4 for their initiative then Bertie and Al would commence acting first, then Clem and the orcs together, then Berite, Al, and then Zombie Dave bringin up the rear (or whatever else he's been eating).

Once the order of initiative is determined each of the figures declares which of options A-H (DMG p61) they are using. In the above example Bertie's player would do this, followed by Al, Clem and the DM for the orcs, and finally Zombie Dave's player. Notice that Bertie has the advantage of acting first but everyone else knows what he's doing when they pick their option; he doesn't know what anyone is doing for sure.

War Houri Unleashes
her Maracas, gaining +1 to
initiative
(Art: Jed Dougherty)

Once everyone has declared their actions they must be resolved. Conceptually, everyone commences their actions at the start of the round with relatively minor delays (ie, less than 6 seconds) between those with initiative and those without less. The archers nock their arrows; the spell casters ready their components, the fighters pick their targets, the thieves run away, and the houris loosen their clothing. In particular, movement and spell casting begin here so all parties involved get a full 10 segments of movement and casting time each and every round.

Initiative Phase 2: Finishing What You Have Started
If everything took the same time then that would be more or less all there is to it - each action would be resolved and then the next round would begin. But some things take more time than others. The two most important ones being movement and spell-casting, although things such as winding up or down a drawbridge, finding a potion in a bag, or even falling also come under this heading and a specific time (usually in segments) is assigned to them. Everything else - archery, striking blows, most magical device effects - has a time requirement of zero (representing "unknown"). Which brings us to the golden rule of AD&D initiative

Actions which have initiative always complete before actions of the same duration or longer which do not have initiative.

Notice that if both actions require the same time, including zero, then the above rule covers the situation and the initiative die will break or confirm the tie.

The question that remains is what happens if the slower action has initiative? To decide that, you need to find the segment on which the faster one completes. If both have a specific time requirement then that answers the question straight away: If you need 3 segments to reach me then any two-segment action by me (such as teleport) will complete before you arrive.

That leaves situations in which only one action has a non-zero time requirement. I'll call the non-zero time action "untimed" (eg, a dragon's breath or a crossbow bolt or a sword in the gut) and the other sort "timed" from here on. There are two possibilities:

1. If the untimed event does not have a speed factor then Method I below is used.
2. If the untimed event has a speed factor (ie, it's a melee weapon attack) then Method II below is used.

Method I (no speed factor): The higher of the two initiative dice is consulted (without modification) and that indicates the segment on which the untimed action completes.

Example:

A fighter runs across a hall through the line of fire of an NPC with a heavy crossbow ready to fire. The distance to cross is 30' and the fighter has a move rate of 9" (9' per segment; doubled to 18' for charging movement) so he will take just 2 segments to cross. Here's how various initiative dice rolls work out:

Fighter rolls 3 and the crossbowman a 4: crossbow wins and gets a to-hit roll (this is just the Golden Rule from above).

Fighter rolls 3 and the crossbowman a 2: fighter wins and is across the gap before the attack roll.

Fighter rolls 2 and the crossbowman a 1: fighter wins and is across the gap before the attack roll.

Fighter rolls 3 and the crossbowman a 3: attack comes too late again.

Fighter rolls 2 and the crossbowman a 2: crossbow gets a to-hit roll but the fighter complete his actions regardless of the result. So, if taken to 0 or less hp they will be prone but out of the line of fire.

Fighter rolls 2 and the crossbowman a 3 but this crossbowman has a -2 to initiative for poor dexterity (or some other reason): the higher die in this case is still the crossbowman's 3 and so the fighter is safe.

All these cases can be replaced by a spell caster attempting to cast a spell with the same results. Note that any action which takes more than 6 segments can not possibly complete before an untimed action.

Method II (with speed factor): If initiative is otherwise tied, then the untimed action completes on the segment equal to the speed factor. Otherwise, the timed action comes on the segment determined by the difference between the speed factor and the losing initiative die.

Example:

If a dervish makes an attack with a scimitar (speed factor 4) and loses initiative with a 3 the attack will come on segment 1; similarly if he loses with a roll of 5 the attack will also come on segment 1.

When the losing initiative die is equal to the speed of the weapon, the segment indicator is zero, meaning that even a 1-segment action (or spell) will be interrupted by the attack.

Remember that you only use Method I or II if the shorter action has not gained initiative and that means that one of the actions must have a specific non-zero time requirement, otherwise the action with initiative is the one that completes first.

Notes

Notice that the system does not assume that what is being dealt with are attacks by one figure on another. There are many times when the players will want to know if, for example, a hold person spell takes effect before a monster attacks a member of the party who is not the spell caster. The example above of the fighter crossing a gap is likewise not one where the characters are in direct combat with each other.

Another thing worth pointing out is that the actions listed on page 61 of DMG are commenced in order. Thus, if a party's cleric turns undead which its fighters are in melee with then those fighters will get a an attack at +4 against the undead as they turn to flee. It is only those actions which have a time requirement which are set aside and resolved in potentially a different sequence from the raw initiative order.

Multiple Attacks

When a creature has multiple attack routines half of those attacks will have automatic initiative against other actions and half will automatically lose. If the creature has an odd number of attacks, then one will be evaluated in the middle in the same way as any other single attack (including using initiative dice to resolve its order).

"So, is this multiple attacks or multiple routines?"
"Shut up"

Gygax seems to have decided that running so many monsters with multiple attacks in the way that is outlined above would be too much complexity,. so he introduced the idea of the attack routine. Basically, when a lion does its claw/claw/bite attack it does so as a single unit against a single target albeit with three separate to-hit rolls. A thief using a sword and a dagger likewise attacks with them together, making two attack rolls against a single opponent. Meanwhile a high level fighter, on the other hand, with two attacks per round gets the benefit of automatic initiative for the first one and can attack two different targets.

In the monster manual, you will find occasional references to monster which are capable of splitting their attacks between targets (trolls, demons, devil, octopuses and a few others). It is never explicitly stated but I think the intent was that these monsters do fight in the same way as the high-level fighter or bowman, gaining the advantage of first strike against those with but a single attack.

Closing to Melee/Charging

A careful look at the options A-H in the DMG reveals an interesting fact: if you are not within melee range at the start of a round you can not make a melee attack this round without charging. Your only options for getting into melee range are to close (make a normal move) or to charge (make a double move with combat at the end), and the latter is only available once per 10 rounds. This has important safety implications for spell casters who are not in the front line at the start of an encounter.

A Clash of Arms

No initiative summary would be complete without a look at the wacky world of initiative ties as they relate to melee weapons. Let's have a table too, why not?

These rules only applies when both combatants' weapons have speed factors and they have tied for initiative.

1. The weapon with the lower speed factor (ie, the faster) attacks first.
2. If the higher weapons' speed factors is three time the speed factor of the faster (or 5 or more higher in any case), the faster weapon gets a bonus strike which is also resolved before the slower weapon.
3. If the difference in speeds is 10 or more (only possible when facing pikes!) then the faster weapon gets a third attack simultaneously with the slower one.

Nobody can claim that is an elegant system, so here's a table instead:

Look out! He's got a dagger!

SF	+1	+2
1	3	11
2	6	12
3	8	13
4	9	14
5	10	15
6	11	16
7	12	17
8	13	16

We'll stop there since 13 is the highest speed factor in the game. The first column is the speed of "your" weapon and the "+1" column indicates the opposing speed factor needed to get an extra attack, and "+2" that needed for two extra attacks.

Extra Reading
In particular, the section entitled "Actions during Combat and Similar Time-Important Situations" on DMG p71 is a useful thing to keep in mind, as is the fact that the rules are a base and you can riff off them and develop your own standards for what happens when in combat. The only real requirement is consistency. Initiative is an important topic in an adventure game as it frames the part of the game where characters are most likely to die - combat. Realism is not as important as being fair in this regard, in my opinion anyway, and AD&D combat is brutal enough without also making it hard for players to predict what is a good idea and what is not.