Treasure tables part 2
Following on from this post I've been digging deeper into Rule Cyclopedia's treasure tables. My aim was to try and figure out some of the internal logic and look at how that edition distributes treasure across hit dice of monsters.
Of the early editions of D&D I'm most familiar with the OD&D brown books and Holmes Basic, and my familiarity with later versions decreases chronologically as you move away from Holmes and towards AD&D. BECMI and RC are, of all the TSR editions, the ones I'm least familiar with. I assumed, however, that since we're still on XP for gold some basic tenets remain true - namely that the hit dice of a monster broadly correlate to the level of the dungeon they are generally found on, which also broadly correlates to how much treasure they tend to have. And RC confirms this, saying:
The level of a dungeon is a number that identifies part of the dungeon, and usually indicates the amount of danger present in that area of the dungeon. Level One, or the "first level," is usually the easiest part of the dungeon—the place where the smallest monsters and treasures can be found. Level Two is more dangerous than Level One, and as the numbers increase, so does the danger. A dungeon may have any number of levels. (p. 262)
My hypothesis was that as monsters increase in threat - i.e. as their hit dice increase - they will generally have more treasure. This seems logical. So my intention when I cracked open RC today was to do the following:
- Complete the "average hoard value" tables, because RC contains treasure types labelled A-V but only provides average values for A-M
- Go through the bestiary part of the book and determine which monsters have which treasure types. Sort this information by Hit Dice and determine which treasure types show up most frequently at each HD.
- Find the average value of treasure hoards at each HD.
- Cross reference these average values with experience thresholds so we can start to determine how many hoards we might expect to find on any given dungeon level (bearing in mind that XP comes from things other than just gold).
I never got to that last point, because what I found was that the treasure tables and treasure distribution in Rules Cyclopedia are absolute fucking nonsense. It's clear to me at this point that I have already put more thought into my treasure tables and how they impact XP and character advancement than anybody working on Basic D&D ever did.
As an aside before we get into it, I also finished working out all the average treasure hoard values for 2nd edition before I started this. (It turns out some of my maths on the last post was wrong, because I did it late at night on a piece of paper rather than on a spreadsheet like a smart person.) I had intended to do all the things on that list for 2e as well, until I remembered that that would be pointless because the game doesn't give XP for gold. But it does mean that I now have complete average treasure value tables for AD&D Revised 2nd Edition:
Treasure Type|GP Value w/PP|GP Value w/EP||Average GP Value of Hoard ---|---|---|--- A|15530|11480|13505 B|31035|3810|17423 C|3555|1980|2768 D|7335|5760|6548 E|11535|6810|9173 F|21300|10050|15675 G|42000|17250|29625 H|44055|23805|33930 I|5950|4375|5163 J|0|0|0 K|1|1|1 L|35|0|18 M|5|5|5 N|18|2|10 O|2|2|2 P|4|4|4 Q|250|250|250 R|2086|1929|2007 S|0|0|0 T|0|0|0 U|3350|3350|3350 V|0|0|0 W|4090|4070|4080 X|0|0|0 Y|700|700|700 Z|6877|5752|6315
(If you're unsure what the columns about EP, PP, and Average Value are all about you should read the post I linked at the top of this one.)
And here are the complete Average Treasure Value tables for Cyclopedia:
| Treasure Type | Rules Cyclopedia GP Value |
|---|---|
| A | 17000 |
| B | 2000 |
| C | 750 |
| D | 4000 |
| E | 2500 |
| F | 7600 |
| G | 25000 |
| H | 60000 |
| I | 7500 |
| J | 25 |
| K | 250 |
| L | 225 |
| M | 50000 |
| N | 11 |
| O | 17 |
| P | 0 |
| Q | 1 |
| R | 4 |
| S | 1003 |
| T | 1018 |
| U | 13567 |
| V | 13844.3 |
Probably important to mention again that neither of these tables includes values for magical items, but the RC tables do include average values for "Special Treasure" (which, when based on average rolls, is hilariously low).
Now for the really daft stuff. The next table shows the average distribution of treasure across every hit dice of monster in Rules Cyclopedia. There are a couple of caveats before we start.
- Firstly, this is only lair treasure. I ignored individual treasure (i.e. those values given in parenthesis). There was a reason for this decision that I've now forgotten.
- Where hit dice are given with a modifier (e.g. "2 + 2") I've simply treated them as 2HD monsters.
- When a creature is given a range of hit dice but only one treasure type, I included that treasure in every relevant hit dice value. So if a monster has a treasure type of U and can have hit dice from 3-9, for example, U was listed once for that monster under each HD row it could potentially occupy.
- Devilfish have been omitted from this table because they're daft and working out how to represent that information is beyond me.
- Creatures with "Special" treasure listed and no explicit treasure type have also been omitted
- Finally, I am positive I made some mistakes when compiling the raw data to produce this table. If you want to repeat my process to double check my work, or if you want a link to the raw data to check it, then you're welcome to it but I promise you you won't have fun.
Here's the table.
| Hit Dice | Average Hoard Value | Most Common Treasure Type | Value of Most Common Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1/2 | 418 | Even distribution: J, L, S | 25 / 225 / 1002 |
| 1 | 14,667 | A | 17,000 |
| 2 | 6,522 | U | 13,567 |
| 3 | 6,909 | C | 750 |
| 4 | 9,295 | U | 13,567 |
| 5 | 10,378 | U | 13,567 |
| 6 | 7,722 | D | 4,000 |
| 7 | 23,367 | E | 2,500 |
| 8 | 29,230 | F | 7,600 |
| 9 | 65,033 | F | 7,600 |
| 10 | 127,500 | H x 2, I | 127,500 |
| 11 | 30,126 | L,N,O | 252.5 |
| 12 | 107,750 | E | 2500 |
| 13 | 45,250 | E + 5000gp | 7,500 |
| 14 | 67,750 | I | 7,500 |
| 15 | 44,083 | H x 2, I | 127,500 |
| 16 | 107,750 | H x 3, I x 2 | 195,000 |
| 17 | 750 | C | 750 |
| 18 | 75,063 | H x 3, I x 2 | 195,000 |
| 19 | 750 | C | 750 |
| 20 | 81,344 | H x 3, I x 2 | 195,000 |
| 22 | 195,000 | H x 3, I x 2 | 195,000 |
| 24 | 262,528 | H x 4, I x 3, N, O | 262,527 |
| 25 | 8,000 | B x 4 | 8,000 |
| 30 | 161,264 | H x 4, I x 3, N, O | 262,527 |
| 32 | 3,000 | C x 4 | 1,250 |
| 36 | 7,500 | I | 7,500 |
| 51 | 16,000 | D x 4 | 16,000 |
Where you're seeing things like "H x 3, I x 2", that's a specific Treasure Type entry that shows up on a single monster and gets repeated across many monsters. That entry specifically is the most common treasure type for that hit dice of monster.
So, yeah. Balance? Never heard of her. There's simply no correlation between the hit dice of a given monster and how much treasure it might have in its lair. And the second I saw that, I stopped this exercise because continuing it is pointless.
So what's my next step for the treasure tables for A Dungeon Game? Well, I'm not sure. I still want to make sure they're built in such a way that people using them to stock dungeons (alongside the dungeon generation tools I still need to write) will be giving out a level of treasure that feels good to players. I think I need to work out some assumptions ADG makes about how quickly you'll advance, and how much of that advancement should come from the accumulation of wealth vs. outright violence. It's an interesting question, because advancement in ADG isn't strictly a matter of gaining wealth and therefore XP. Exertion effectively functions as a separate advancement track, as do Scars, so I think I can get away with erring on the side of less treasure rather than more.
Either way, it's good to know that whatever I end up doing is going to make more sense than D&D ever did.