What do you suppose the odds are that Cloud Giants are supposed to be doing 6-36 points of damage, not 6-63 points of damage? Just bumped into this specific detail, and immediately was struck by what the book says...
I'm guessing it's infinite-to-one.
~does not know how to calculate odds~
Best I can do is 2d12+4d10. That gives 6-64, though.
ReplyDelete3d20+3
ReplyDeleteMichael Prescott ; TOO-fast, on the draw.
ReplyDelete:(
3-60 +3
ReplyDeleteYou're rarely going to see multiple dice types used to create an individual, attack/damage type or set.
ReplyDeleteThat's more of a post TSR thing, (3.5 & PFRPG era). I don't think it ever appears in Basic D&D.
"Think" --- being my operative. I'm not absolute, but I'm pretty sure it's always, x#- of this dice type, for this attack; and y#- of this dice type, for that one.
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed this before, let me dig up a link
ReplyDeleteThe progression up the chart for types of giants' damage goes:
ReplyDelete2-16
3-18
4-24
5-30
6-63
7-42
"63" has to be a typo...
Oh yeah, if Storm G's are 7-42 then there's a strong case for typo. Let's see what ol' Zach H digs up. I'm intrigued now.
ReplyDeletegotta be 6-36
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of a "duh"
ReplyDeleteThe strongest evidence is that it's 6-36 in the Greyhawk Supplement.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that they didn't catch it when revising the book...
ReplyDeleteSo are you keeping it in the Monster Reference Sheet as an historical artifact...? ; )
Here's the thread I was thinking of, over on Dragonsfoot this past Jan rather than here: https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=76080
ReplyDeleteThis was an error TSR introduced. Holmes didn't include any variable damage from Greyhawk. TSR made a mess of the Giants Table by including both damage systems from OD&D Vol 2 and Greyhawk, and also by introducing this typo, which was never corrected.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted in that thread, there are other errors that were never corrected in the rulebook, so I assume it's just a matter of nobody bringing it to their attention at the time or noticing it during revision.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I was generating a "randomized" monster from the MRS you made, in the method you specify, which is what lead me to the damage weirdness. I just thought, "6-63 is a really strange and high range of damage!" and looked into a bit further and the error was glaring out at me from the page, given the progression in evidence.
ReplyDelete6-63 can be had with (3d20 + 3). So it's easy to roll that range, but nearly everyone agrees it's a typo as using a d20 for damage is a bit weird. 6d6 is already scary. And if you look at some of the other giants on the list they fit into 5d6 (fire?) and 7d6 (storm).
ReplyDeleteI did the Monster Reference Sheet quite a while ago (2012) - it was the first one. Likely at the time I wasn't yet aware of the error. I'm sure there are still some other undiscovered errors in the text!
ReplyDeleteJon Wilson That's funny! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I should update it. These days I use standard dice notation (1d6, 6d6 etc) rather than ranges, since the whole point of a reference sheet is to make things quick. So I should update that table to use dice notation.
ReplyDeleteTypos sure are great for generating discussion!
ReplyDeleteRead the last paragraph under "Monsters" (before the list) on page #22.
ReplyDelete6-12 adventures before 2nd level?!
That's not what we were led to believe on pg #11 :-D
Typo or not, I'm glad that mentality didn't stick
That paragraph was added by Gygax, who also greatly reduced the value of treasure Holmes put in the Sample Dungeon. Maybe he was trying to extend the usability of the Basic Set (i.e., justify a set only covering three levels)? It doesn't really fit with the amount of treasure Gygax gives out in his low level modules (T1, B2). It seems more suited for a hardscrabble game where you start with no money and have to fight single giant rats to earn spare copper coins and slowly scrounge your way to 2nd level.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I need to make some "Hardscrabble Holmes" rules.
ReplyDelete...Hmmm. I dunno.
ReplyDelete1600-to-3200-ish XP for the party for a "first level" adventure seems okay. If that were just foes of around first level, that'd be over 100 foes just for the 1600 XP. Of course XP is coming from treasure, but it's still just "1st level" treasure.
That'd fit with "6-12 adventures" to reach 2nd level.
But these are back-of-the-napkin numbers, so I may be way off... [i.e., I'm assuming a party of about 8 [adults, kids, or mixed], the kind of size I saw a lot of and played a lot with in those early years.]
What's the progression? hill, stone, fire, frost, storm, cloud?
ReplyDelete4 PC's (the standard assumption;) of 1st level (I'll just do human classes, 1 of ea.); require 7200 exp pts., to advance the entire party (by the completion of the adventure,) to 2nd level. Subtract an easily assumed +10% exp. and we get to 6480.
ReplyDeleteAssuming a 3-level dungeon, that's gonna need 2160 exp per level, divided by 4 PC's = 540 exp pts., needed per PC, per dungeon-level.
Meaning each member would need to kill the equivalent of 36 berserkers (1+1 HD) each, per level.
Hmm...
With ascending (exponential?) exp points as the party "descends"; and the huge variables from treasure, trap-solving and what have you.
Hmm...
More importantly; -- "Only THIRTY-SIX dungeons to go 'till 4th level!"
Hmm....
Don't overlook leaving the dungeon and then going back after healing, re-provisioning, hiring more hirelings, etc. That could theoretically make one dungeon more than one "adventure".
ReplyDeleteAnd the assumed 4 in the party is a latter day phenomenon; older groups tended to be bigger, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience. Even pics I've seen of the olden days have more than four people playing with a GM (maybe even in pics of Dr. Holmes running games, IIRC). Plus, hirelings were common in the early days, and GMs would give them a cut of XP, too (sometimes not a full cut).
"6-36 points of damage, not 6-63" is pure heresy. Obviously 3d20+3 is correct while 6d6 is symptomatic of the bane of our hobby - innovation.
ReplyDeleteArnold K., hill, stone, frost, fire, cloud, storm.
ReplyDeleteIf a cloud giant dropped a rock from their cloud lair on someone on the ground, 6-63 seems kinda lite on damage to me. ;)
ReplyDeleteI vote to keep it 6-63. Let people fear the clouds, like the used to in the olden days. /sarcasm?
ReplyDelete