FREQUENCY:
NO. APPEARING:
ARMOR CLASS:
MOVE:
HIT DICE:
% IN LAIR:
TREASURE TYPE:
NO. OF ATTACKS:
DAMAGE/ATTACK:
SPECIAL ATTACKS:
SPECIAL DEFENSES:
MAGIC RESISTANCE:
INTELLIGENCE:
ALIGNMENT:
SIZE:
PSlONlC ABILITY:
    Attack/Defense Modes:

The term “monster“ is used throughout this work in two
manners. Its first, and most important, meaning is to
designate any creature encountered -- hostile or
otherwise, human, humanoid, or beast. Until the
encountering party determines what they have come upon,
it is a monster. The secondary usage of the term is in the
usual sense: a horrible or wicked creature of some sort.
Thus, a ”monster” is encountered during the course of a
dungeon expedition, and it is discovered to be an evil high
priest, who just might turn out to be a monster in the other
sense as well. Note, however, that despite this terminology,
humans (and such kin as dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-
elves, and haflings) always use the matrix for humans
when attacking, even if such humans were encountered as
“monsters“ in the course of an adventure.

Where necessary, a sketch of each monster is shown.
Details of information pertaining to a given monster are
included immediately after the headings explained above. <moved>
 

General Information

Q: Will a monster join a character
party if invited?

A: Possibly, if its reaction is favorable and it
has something to gain from joining the
party. An evil monster might join in order
to get an opportunity to turn on a party
unexpectedly.
(131.62)

FREQUENCY refers to the likelihood of a particular creature
being encountered in a region or area where it might be an
inhabitant. Very rare indicates a 4% chance of occurrence,
rare indicates an 11% chance, uncommon indicates a 20%
chance, and common indicates a 65% chance.
These probabilities are considered in the encounter matrices found in AD&D, DMG.
<could be revised to the MM2>
<note: i have expanded the initial FREQUENCY field with verbatim quotes from the original text>
<below the initial field, all of that is compiled from the MM2>

NUMBER APPEARING indicates a good avg. spread.
This number is furnished as a guideline only, and it should
be altered to suit the circumstances particular to any
adventure as the need arises. It is not generally
recommended for use in establishing the population of
dungeon levels.

ARMOR CLASS describes the general type of protection worn by humans || humanoid creatures,
protection inherent to the creature due to its physical structure or magical nature, or
the degree of difficulty of hitting a creature due to its {SPEED}, reflexes, etc.
<PH: AC>
<remember that the MM AC values might be 1 off!!>
<provide a citation from the DF Forums for this>

Q: What is the armor class and damage
for humanoid monsters mean? Is
this the armor class of that creature regardless
of armor worn (or not)? Is the
damage listed done by the creature when
it fights without weapons?
A: The armor class listed for humanoids
is the typical type of armor worn by that
monster. It is possible for that creature to
have a better armor class when wearing
better types of armor or a worse armor
class when wearing types of armor that
give less protection. Humanoids without
armor will probably have an armor class
in the area of 10 to 8; the final decision is
left to the DM, and he or she may use
whatever is desired. The damage listed
for humanoid monsters is the average
amount of damage that creature will do if
the DM does not want to figure the weapon
carried by each creature. The damage
listed is not done by such creatures
when unarmed, unless they are armed
with some type of natural weapons
(claws, fangs, etc.). This applies to goblins,
kobolds, hobgoblins, orcs, bugbears,
dwarves, elves, gnolls,
halflings, and troglodytes.
- DC (Polyhedron #1)

Q. If a monster in flight is attacking
characters on the ground, is there a
modification to its AC as
stated in the Monster Manuals <I, II> or
FIEND FOLIO Tome?
A. No. Unless specifically stated otherwise,
a flying monster's AC
does not vary because it is flying into
the attack.
    Flying, of course, does affect combat
in other ways -- the 'flesh to stone'
power of a cockatrice is particularly
deadly when used in aerial fights (its
victims tend to fall rapidly to the
ground and shatter) or if the cockatrice
is approaching a ground opponent
at 18" per melee round.
(Imagine #9)
 
 

MOVE shows the relative {SPEED} of a creature on a constant
basis. Higher speeds may be possible for short periods, but
as this is generally applicable to all sorts of creatures, a
constant is shown. It can be scaled to whatever time period
is desired by adjusting ground scale accordingly. The
number might be double, and this indicates that the
creature can travel in two mediums or modes:

/#” = flying SPEED
//#“= swimming SPEED
(#”) = burrowing SPEED
*P = SPEED in web

HIT DICE indicates the parameters of the number of HP a creature can withstand before being killed. Unless
stated otherwise, HD are 8-sided (1-8 HP). The
indicated number of dice are rolled, and the numbers
shown on each are added together to arrive at a total
number of hit points. Some creatures have hit points which
are less than a full 8-sided die, and this is shown by stating
their HD as a point spread. Some creatures have
additional points added to their HD; this is indicated by
a plus sign followed by a number shown after the number
of hit dice they have, i.e. HIT DICE: 4 + 4 (which equals 4-
32 hit points +4 hit points, or 8-36 hit points).

Question: How do I handle monsters like Asmodeus,
Baalzebul, Demogorgon, etc. who have hit points given, but not
hit dice? I don’t know what level they fight, cast spells, or
save at.

Answer: Using the procedure described for golems (Monster
Manual, page 47), hit dice for any monster not given a hit-dice
number can be calculated by using 4.5 points per hit die divided into
the given hit-point total and rounding the result to the nearest whole
number. For example, a clay golem (50 HP) is considered as an 11-
hit-dice monster. Asmodeus (199 HP) is considered to have 44 hit
dice, and Juiblex (88 HP) is treated as a monster of 20 hit dice. — J.
Wells
l l l
 

Q: Certain monsters have no listed
hit dice, only a fixed number of hit
points. How do you figure out their
effective hit dice for things like saving
throws and combat ability?

A: Unless the creature’s description states
otherwise, divide total hit points by 4.5 to
get hit dice.
(131.62)

Q: The biggest, nastiest creatures in the
Monster Manual have hit points, not hit
dice. How do you figure their saving
throws, "to hit" rolls needed, level of
spellcasting ability, and so forth?
A: Divide the hit points by 4.5 (the average
of 1d8) to determine their hit dice. This is
then used to find all the details you need.
(Polyhedron #6)
 

I say that as barbarians get d12 for HPs, then clearlly extrapolation of the same principle must apply to large and vigorous creatures.
This mitigates the potential increase in PC prowess.
As a matter of fact, adult critters were assigned 7-12 HPs per HD in my AD&D campaigm--have been given the same in what I have designed for the C&C game system.
Also, with increase in damage due to Strength, all large and powerful monsters, including ogres and giants, gain a damage bonus equal to their number of HD.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
Does this mean the standard hit die for monsters was to be increased from d8 to d12, or only for certain monsters that fall into the "large and vigorous" category?
Rolled on a d6? This sounds similar to the starting hit die for barbarians as originally presented in Dragon.

Actually I planned to go through the monsters' roster and re-assign HD types--d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12.
While doind that in regards to the HPs of each type, the monsters' chance to hit based on number of HD would not be affected.

As too often "weak" monsters were randolly generated, I also planned to have robust adults possess HP totals of something over 50% of the possible maximum by using a HP generation system such as 3-4, 4-6, 6-10, 7-12 using the appropriate die to determine the actual number generated--d2, d3, d5, d6.
Non-robust--immature, old, sick, injured, or even non-physicaly active sorts such as spell caster--monsters would have the obverse HP range using the same type of die without addition.
 

Joe Maccarrone wrote:
As if you didn't have enough queries awaiting your attention... 

Gary, I read somewhere -- here on DF, IIRC -- that you once intended to use different HD for different types of AD&D monsters, but for some reason stuck with D8 for all.
Is that true, and what was the reason?

Thank you, kind sir.

Howdy Joe!

Indeed, I intended to use the range of d4 through d12 for monsters.
that would give a more intyeresting range for the chance to hit and the amlunt of damage creatures could sustain.
Small fast ones wuld have d4, large ones d12, so thus there could be a pair of 10 HD monsters, one with 25 HPs and the other with 65 

Cheers,
Gary
 

merkholz wrote:
Perhaps I should post my query while I'm posting?

I have heard rumours that you tinkered with the die in Hit Dice in your games, i.e. not always using a d8 but for some monsters a d6 and others a d10 etc.
Demons supposedly used d10 for hp.
I was wondering if you could confirm the rumour and detail the use of different dice.

M

As noted below by rabindranath72, I have indeed tinkered with hit dice.
Currently I use further adjustments for mature and robust members of a species.
If the HD involved is a d4, the spread for each is 3-4, for d6 it is 4-6, for d8 it is 5-8, etc.
That avoids having pushover adversaries that are supposedly potent ones.
Young and old members of the species are treated in the obverse in regards to HD point spread.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor the Mighty!
Hi Gary.

I was wondering what you thought of the "5% principle" combat, saving throw, and xp charts in Dragon 80.
It says it was written by you and Len Lakofka. I was thinking of using them but was interested in your opinion on them.

P.S. if a monster has 8+8 HD, like a Balor, does it have 8d8+64 or 8d8+8 hp? What column would I use on the attack charts?
 

My memory is pretty good, but not that good! Heh-heh-heh.
Dragon #80? that's going way back...
My copy is archived and there's no way I can review the material and refresh my memory, so a cogent response is not possible.

As for the second part, the 8+8 HD, that was meant as 8d8+8 hp, but for big monsters like demons I was using d10.
I used the 9 HD column for 8+8, but one could reasonable use the 10 HD column.

Cheers,
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor the Mighty!
Alas! It was a unified matrix that had all clases and HD of monsters together.
It was in the Leomund's Tiny Hut section. Oh well playtesting is the only way to find out how good it works. Supposedly it gives a slightly better chance to hit for PC's and it gives more 5% increases in hit probability to non fighters instead of having them wait 3-5 levels to get a 10-15% increase.
 

Ah, that rings a tiny bell.
I seem to recall that, and I thought Len was being too generous to non-fighters, for they already have other advantages.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor the Mighty!
Ok, so a Balor would be 8d10+8 HP or an average of 52 hp, while the dreaded Pit Fiend is a 13 HD badass with an average of 72 hp, and a better attack table.
Methinks you have a bias towards LE and devils at the expense of CE demons.
Reading some of the stories about how you stuck it to your players maybe you lean towards LE while you DM? =)
 

Actually, I was quite TN in my role, unless the party was being stupid or annoying.
Then I would become CE in regards to random encounters, or LA in regards adhering to the doom that they brought upon themselves.

Of course the time Rob and I were sharing a bottle of Southern Comfort as we DMed Ernie' magic-user and Mark Ratner's paladin was more of a CE exercise that anything else, mainly because I saw it as a chance to relieve Ernie's PC of the two vorpal blades he had acquired.. I don't think I've ever been forgiven for that adventure...

Cheers,
Gary
 
 

<
d4 = T
d6 = S
d8 = M
d10 = L, demons
d12 = H
>

<use upper half of the die as a default (theory)>
<lower half of the die represents the young and the old>
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
If you have a group of say, 6 orcs, do you like to roll HP for each orc separately, or just give them all the average?

I like to roll for each monster, to keep the PC's guessing. Also, it helps me with really basic roleplaying -- the orc with 8 hp is an alpha male, an orc's orc, whereas the orc with 1 hp is the runt of the litter, much more likely to run for help, and might even surrender.
 

I play it thus: Of the critters are raiders, warriors, of active hunters I assume that all of them will have one-half or more of the possible HPs for their type.
If I want to make the encounter special, I then see if any of the memebrs are in ill health or wouded.

For straight out confrontations, though, I just have at it with HPs as noted...and ogres and giants and like big and tough monsters have d12 HD.

Cheerio,
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odnasept

Secondly, what is your stance on the increase in power dragons received upon the release of the 2nd Edition AD&D game? They were always beings of great power, but the non-unique dragons went from being inferior to the most powerful of giants to being able to surpass them and perhaps even Titans as well once they reached the eldest age categories (I persynally almost always supported this change, though my reason is primarily due to an inherent love of dragonkind and ambivalence toward giantkind).
 

I am much appaled by the over-emphasis of the prowess of the Occidental dragon.
They were continually slain by humans, so what is the justification for the power increase?
Nothing but the hubris of the inept designer.
OTOH, if proper stats were desired, the Oriental dragons are the ones that need be vastly improved in their capacities.

This is not to say that I did not intend to beef up these critters in a revised edition of the AD&D game.
I was planning to move the base HD from d8 to d10 or maybe d12, and give them additional attack damage equal to the number of HD possessed, this in an incrimental scale (intended) based on the HPs per HD possessed. As i mentined previously, all large and robust critters were to have gained d12 HD base, HP spread based on 50% of HD + a variable addition above that equal to up to another 50%, along with damage addition based on HD#. (I have dine this in the camopaign material I have created for the C&C RPG system.)

In short, I do not believe that dragins were everm or should be now, the toughest monsters in the marches, and I will not cave in to pressure to change my mind in that regard.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMac5892
Ho there, Colonel!

I haven't posted over here before, but have been checking in regularly for some time.
While catching up on what I missed while in the UK, I found some discussion a few weeks ago of one of my favorite topics: variable HD types for AD&D critters. 

I've compiled some ideas based on your prior posts on the matter, plus my own thoughts; would very much appreciate your opinion on the categories below...

Thanks! 

Joe

D4 or D6: used for small monsters who may attack with a higher HD matrix, but have few hit points (e.g. giant ant).

D8: The general standard. Used for many ‘giant-class’ humanoids, animals, large insect- or arachnid-type monsters, and very large invertebrate creatures.

D10: used for large monsters and animals, some ‘giant-class’ humanoids, the smaller demon and devil types, and very large water creatures.

D12: used for the largest monsters or animals, such as dinosaurs, dragons, etc. Also used for very large ‘giant class’ humanoids (ogres and larger) and the larger demon and devil types.

Notes:

• Idea: rather than D10 to D12 for demons & devils, use +1 to +4 hit points per (8-sided) die, as the various daemon types get?

• Some large animals might have greater physcial mass than ogres or giants, for example, but do not qualify for D12 hit dice because hit points subsume (intelligent) fighting ability in addition to body mass.

• Some monsters (e.g. kobold, goblin) retain the ‘1/2’ or ‘1-1’ classification based on the D8, as this determines their attack matrix.
 

Hi,

that system of classification you propose is logical,
although I believe that no hard and fast stable aplied across the board will serve to properly reflect the robustness of all creatures dealt with in the game.
Again, in general I agree with your work.

I would not use minus HPs for kobolds, rather d4.
That allows them better attack capacity while maintaining them as relatively fragile opponents.

For truly gargantuan and hearty monsters I would suggest the +HPs to D12 base.

Cheers,
Gary
 

% IN LIAR indicates the chance of encountering the
monster in question where it domiciles and stores its
treasure (if any).

If a monster encountered is not in its lair it
will not have any treasure unless it carries “individual”
treasure or some form of magic. Whether or not an
encounter is occurring in the monster‘s lair might be totally
unknown to the person or persons involved until after the
outcome of the encounter is resolved.

TREASURE TYPE refers to the table which shows the
parameters for various types of valuables which the
monster in question might possess. If individual treasure is
indicated, each individual monster of that type will carry, or
possibly carry, the treasure shown. Otherwise, treasures are
only found in the lairs of monsters, as explained above.
Note also that although an encounter occurs in a monster’s
lair, and the monster possesses some treasure type, this
does not automatically mean that the adventurers will gain
treasure by defeating the monster. Most treasure types
show probabilities for various kinds of wealth to occur in
the treasure of the monster. If subsequent dice rolls indicate
that that form of treasure is not in the monster’s trove, then
it is not there, and it is quite possible to come up with no
wealth (including magical items) of any sort in a monster’s
lair despite the fact that a treasure type is indicated. Finally,
it must be stated that treasure types are based upon the
occurrence of a mean number of monsters as indicated by
the number appearing and adjustments detailed in the
explanatory material particular to the monster in question.
Adjustment downwards should always be made for
instances where a few monsters are encountered. Similarly,
a minor adjustment upwards might be called for if the
actual number of monsters encountered is greatly in excess
of the mean. The use of treasure type to determine the
treasure guarded by a creature in a dungeon is not
generally recommended. Larger treasures of a given type
are denoted by a multiplier in parentheses (X 10, etc.) -
not to be confused with treasure type X.

Paul J. Stormberg wrote:
Howdy Gary,

...

Ya' know I was just thinking about this.
Re-reading the whole paragraph in the Monster Manual, were you referring to adjusting the amount or chance for treasure?

My players just faced 10 wraiths and lost several levels, however, due to the low % for each treasure type they got doodly squat. The mean is 7 wraiths out of 2-12 possible.

My interpretation is that it is the chance. In my example above the wraiths normally have a 25% chance for 1,000-8,000 gold pieces. With 10 appearing that multiplies the chance by about 1.7 or 42.5% chance for gold or is it instead a 25% chance for 1,700 to 13,600 gp or even a 42.5% chance for 1,700 to 13,600 gp?

What say you?
 

Futures Bright,

Paul
 

Hi Paul!

Just mentioned your name a few minutes ago on a post on EN World boards in regard to The Strategic Preview and the "Ultimist Class" spoof. anyway...

With my generous nature, when a party faced 10 wraiths, I'd have upped the percentage chance for treasure being found, right across the board, and then added a to the amount of treasure, or its worth, by about 10%--a +1 on a d6 to d10 roll, a better magic item, that sort of thing.

In essence, it's a case of DM discretion 

Cheers,
Gary
 

Joe Maccarrone wrote:
...

For hit dice, it would be easy enough to convert modules on the fly by adding a point or two per die, if going from D8 to D10 or D12....And probably not a bad idea, with fighting characters specialized in two-handed weapons... :)
 

It is indeed easy to do that, and to use a bonus to damage based on the critter's HD.

All of my mature giants, for example, have HPs ranging from 7-12 per HD too 

Cheers,
Gary
 
 

NUMBER OF ATTACKS shows the number of basic attacks
the monster is able to make during a given mêlée round.
This number can be modified by hits which sever members,
spells such as haste || slow, and so forth. It does not usually
consider unusual or special attack forms. Multiple attacks
usually indicate the use of several members such as
multiple heads or two paws raking with claws and a bite
from the monster‘s jaws.

<note: with the (noted) exceptions of certain creatures such as demons and trolls, all attacks of an attack routine must be against the same opponent>
<note: this might not apply to high-level fighters (et al). with multiple attacks>
 

DAMAGE- PER ATTACK simply indicates the amount of
damage a given attack will cause when it hits expressed as
a spread of HP. If the monster employs weapons the
damage can not, of course, be shown, for it depends on the
type of weapon employed by a particular monster.

Q: What is the armor class and damage
for humanoid monsters mean? Is
this the armor class of that creature regardless
of armor worn (or not)? Is the
damage listed done by the creature when
it fights without weapons?

A: The armor class listed for humanoids
is the typical type of armor worn by that
monster. It is possible for that creature to
have a better armor class when wearing
better types of armor or a worse armor
class when wearing types of armor that
give less protection. Humanoids without
armor will probably have an armor class
in the area of 10 to 8; the final decision is
left to the DM, and he or she may use
whatever is desired. The damage listed
for humanoid monsters is the average
amount of damage that creature will do if
the DM does not want to figure the weapon
carried by each creature. The damage
listed is not done by such creatures
when unarmed, unless they are armed
with some type of natural weapons
(claws, fangs, etc.). This applies to goblins,
kobolds, hobgoblins, orcs, bugbears,
dwarves, elves, gnolls,
halflings, and troglodytes.
- DC (Polyhedron #1)
 

I say that as barbarians get d12 for HPs,
then clearlly extrapolation of the same principle must apply to large && vigorous creatures.
This mitigates the potential increase in PC prowess.
As a matter of fact,
adult critters were assigned 7-12 HPs per HD in my AD&D campaigm--
have been given the same in what I have designed for the C&C game system.
Also, with increase in damage due to Strength,
all large and powerful monsters,
including ogres and giants,
gain a damage bonus equal to their number of HD.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
Was the determination of such a damage bonus dependant on the monster's assumed Strength score or just on the fact that monster was large and presumably strong? Would this damage bonus apply to natural attacks as well as those attacking with weapons?
It's always great to get some insight into the "lost" 2nd edition AD&D! Thanks!
 

As a ganeral rule I used HD = additional damage, half HD for the non-robust individuals.
So an ogre would be 4d12 + 1 HPs, with damage as +4 or +2.

A 1st level m-u with a Sleep spell could still count on taking out the orge.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Joe Maccarrone wrote:
Ooh, I feel some juicy house rules brewing! Those dragons need more hit points... 

Did something happen around the time the MM was produced, that led to D8 for all?

Thanks!

Joe
 

Sadly, there's no truly interesting tale to twell here.
It was just a matter of inertia, with so much new material being created for the AD&D game system that the HDs for critters was given shirt shrift.
The same is true fordamage bonuses for the big, really fearsome monsters.
For example, I now tend to give a +1 damage for every HD of an ogre, giant, or dragon.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Mouser
Heh, anotehr weapon-type question, Gary. In the original Monster Manual (as well as the FF and MM II) you list the various humanoids as having a specific damage per attack (for example, 1-8 for hobgoblins) "or by weapon." I was wondering if you meant the given die-value for damage as an amount of damage based on the creature in question being otherwise unarmed or as some kind of default number for DM's who didn't want to bother figuring out what kind of weapon the creatures were armed with?

the number given for damage inflicted was a default to use when not wishing to get into the specifics of humanoid arming and additiopns for superior individuals in the group.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Mouser
Also, if a humanoid is armed with a weapon that does less damage than the listed default amount would you go with the weapon damage or the listed default damage (i.e., would the said hobgoblin, if armed with a spear, do 1-6 damage for the spear or the listed 1-8)?

Thanks in advance!

Gray Mouser
 

Yes,
in the case where i had specific weapons listed for the humanopids I'd use the damage applicable for that weapon,
but I'd note the strength of the wielder,
so there might be a bonus.
In such cases I normally have levels for the humanoids too,
as all are not ordinary.

Cheers,
Gary

SPECIAL ATTACKS detail such attack modes as dragon
breath, magic use, etc. The full explanation of the mode is
detailed in the material describing the monster.

Q: Can creatures with at-will abilities
use such abilities while attacking?
A: Can they use several abilities in the
same round, say one per segment?
Creatures that have at-will abilities may
use one such ability, once per round, in
addition to normal movement or attacks.
(150.9)
 

Q: Do creatures with "spell-like powers"
need to cast the powers like spells?
Can you interrupt them, like with spellcasters,
and ruin their effects?
A: Spell-like powers are not spells, and
do not need to be "cast." They can be
produced in total silence, for example,
and in 1 segment of concentration. Thus,
they can only be interrupted if a blow
connects on the same segment --
and if the creature sees a swing coming,
it can easily delay a bit to avoid interruption.
(Polyhedron #10)

Q: How long does (or should) paralysis
caused by a carrion crawler last? And
what, if any, are the effects of multiple
hits by this creature?
A: Paralysis from creautres lasts as long
as paralysis from a wand: 5d4 (5-20)
rounds (DMG page 136). Multiple hits
from a carrion crawler (or any other
paralyzing creature) forces multiple saving
throws on the part of the victim;
when any one is failed, the other hits
have no further effect on the paralysis
(damages still apply if given, such as by
a ghoul or ghast).
(Polyhedron #2)

Q: How long does paralyzation last?
IS it permanent until cured? What
cures paralyzation? What is paralyzation,
really?
A: In medical terms, paralyzation is the loss
of sensation in part of the body as the
victim?s brain, for one reason or another,
no longer controls the body. The uncontrolled
muscles relax, and the victim goes
limp. Autonomic muscles, such as the
heart and lungs, are unaffected. Some
kinds of paralysis in the AD&D game
(paralysis caused by ghouls and ghasts, for
example) cause the victim to become rigid
and immobile. In either case, paralysis
affects only the body, not the mind. The
victim can still think and use psionics or
any form of movement that does not require
muscular effort. For example, if a
character becomes paralyzed while using
a fly spell, he can still fly until the spell
runs out.
Paralyzation is not permanent. It can last
anywhere from several rounds or turns to
as much as a day. It can be removed with a
remove paralysis spell (which removes
paralysis of all types) or by a cure disease,
neutralize poison, or dispel magic spell,
depending on what caused the paralysis.
Paralysis caused by undead creatures is
disease- or fear-based; paralysis caused by
living creatures is poison-based; paralysis
caused by a glyph of warding or the illusionist
spell paralyzation is magic-based.
The AD&D 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendium,
Volume 1, lists the duration for
ghoul paralysis as 3-8 rounds and ghast
paralysis as 5-10 rounds. Paralysis caused
by more powerful creatures lasts longer;
lich paralysis, for example, lasts until
dispelled.
(150.10)

SPECIAL ATTACKS / FEAR ATTACKS
Q. If a creature (eg a coffer corpse) or
object causes fear and a character
flees from it after failing the saving
throw, only to return to face the
creature, will it repeatedly have the
same effect?
A. When magickal fear could have an
effect on a character there are 2
possible results: the character flees
in panic or makes a save and
ignores the effects of the fear. Once
the character has run away, the fear
will gradually wear off, and the
character can return to face the
creature, (say a coffer corpse), that
caused the effect in the 1st place.
However, when the creature is seen
again, another save must be made.
(Imagine #28)

SPECIAL ATTACKS / GAZE ATTACKS
Q: How do you handle gaze attacks?
A: A creature with a gaze weapon may use
it on one opponent per round in addition
to any physical attacks. If the creature is
unintelligent, this will be a random opponent.
Intelligent creatures may pick their
victims. Any opponent who can see the
creature can be subject to the attack. The
opponent who is subjected to the gaze
attack must save vs. petrification. Some
campaigns allow opponents to avert their
eyes and become immune to the gaze
attack, but such opponents attack and
defend at a -4 penalty, and the decision
to avert the eyes must be made prior to
both the initiative roll and anyone knowing
where the gaze will be directed. Some
DMs may rule that if an entire party is
surprised, all must save against the gaze
during the first surprise segment of the
encounter (several party members could
accidentally meet the creature?s gaze during
the confusion of the surprise segment).
(150.36)
 

Q: If a party sees a monster with a gaze
attack (catoblepas, medusa, umber hulk)
all at once, how many must save vs. the
effects?
A: Only one, determined by position or at
random. A gaze weapon can only affect
1 creature per round. Note that with
surprise, each surprise segment is treated
as a round for certain attacks -- and gaze
should be included as 1 of them.
    This is why a Gorgon is so nasty; its
petrifying breath is an area effect, and
can wipe out entire parties in 1 blow.
(Polyhedron #10)
 

Q: Can a creature with a gaze weapon
attack more than one target per round?
Is it possible to use both the gaze weapon
and natural or melee weapons in
the same round?
A: A gaze weapon will only affect one
victim per round, but this attack form is
in addition to any other attacks given; a
basilisk, for example, can gaze and
then bite in the same round.
(Polyhedron #2)
(Imagine #4)

Q. How many people can a medusa
petrify in 1 round?
A. The gaze of a medusa (or basilisk for
that matter) can only affect 1
person per round.  This is in addition
to any other attacks made by the
creature, although it may be difficult
for it to hit 1 person while 'gazing'
at another!
(Imagine #13)

SPECIAL DEFENSES are simply what the term implies and
are detailed in the same manner as are special attacks.

Q: Can something which may only be
struck by silver or +1 or better weapons
be affected by non-magical area affects,
such as fire, gas, acid, and the
like? Furthermore, would a magical attack
without "plusses" (such as Fireball,
Lightning Bolt, or Stinking Cloud)
affect such as a creature? Are they
immune to gaze attacks?
A: Read the description literally; they are
affected by those WEAPONS only, but
the restrictoin does not apply to other
attack forms. Unless specified otherwise,
the other attack forms will do
normal damage. Magical attacks will
affect the victim normally, including
gaze weapons.
(Polyhedron #2)

Q: Would blasters or lasers from GAMMA WORLD adventures be able to harm creatures
only affected by magical weapons, such as gargoyles?
A: Yes; such energy attacks would harm
nearly all AD&D monsters or characters.
Use the "Mutants & Magic" section of the
DMG to arbitrate details of such combat.
(79.16)

Q. If a monster requires a +1 or better
weapon to hit, would it be vulnerable
to poison?
A. Some monsters are immune to
poison even if players overcome the
problem of actually getting the poison
into the monster's system.  On top of
this, the DM must consider the
strength of the poison used (see
DMG p20-21) and the size/physical
make-up of the monster (see DMG
p81). Magickal or undead creatures <define magickcal>
would always be immune.
(Imagine #11)
 

Q: Can creatures with at-will abilities
use such abilities while attacking?
A: Can they use several abilities in the
same round, say one per segment?
Creatures that have at-will abilities may
use one such ability, once per round, in
addition to normal movement or attacks.
(150.9)

ADQ: In the descriptions for some monsters,
it is said that they only can be harmed by
cold-wrought iron (or magick weapons).
How is a cold-wrought weapon made,
and where can it be obtained?
ADA: Cold-wrought iron is iron which is
shaped without heat, generally by pounding
and filing. Sources of cold-wrought weapons
vary from one campaign to another, and it
is up to your DM to decide where such
weapons might be found in his own world.
They are generally rare, as they take more
time and effort to make than forged weapons,
and are not as durable.
(Polyhedron #32)

garhkal wrote:
Gary. If i can, another question for you.
Would a monster only 'hurt' by magical weapons, still take damage from getting thrown/falling?
Like if my Monk hip tossed you into the bar, or i grabbed you, flew to 100 feet and let go??
 

Harumph...

Even though the game system in question is not mine to opine in regards its rules and mechanics, I can pass along how I would manage the question of such special forms of damage being inflicted by creatures normally affected only by magical attacks.

As similarly potent, non-magical, monsters can inflict harm on them, I would ignore the minor damage delivered by throwsin hand-to-hand fighting, but allow damage for long falls, heavy objects falling and striking, etc. What I would do in such case is record normal damage, but lost HPs would return, just as a troll regenerates, likelt at 1 HP per HD of the monster, as only magical damage can permanently affect the subject.

Cheers,
Gary
 

deimos3428 wrote:
We always treated the earth as a +5 weapon in regards to falling damage. (There's mithril/adamantite in there somewhere, I figure.) The regeneration rule is an interesting touch.
 

Actually, a dropped or hurled object of considerable density, hardness, and weight is about the same as that.
that said, would a demon really be killed by a fall of even 1,000 feet onto rock?
I think not, and the same for most monsters that can be harmed by magic or other monsters.
Thus the regeneration.

The DM needs to consider the cause of damage and decide if regeneration is appropriate and at what rate.
Some creatures being "killed" by attacks of magical sort or exctreme force will merely be sent back to their own plane as is well known;)

Cheers,
Gary

INTELLIGENCE indicates the basic equivalent of human "IQ."
Certain monsters are instinctively, or otherwise,
cunning, and such is accordingly noted in the body of the
descriptive material. The ratings correspond roughly to the
following character intelligence scores:
 

0	Non-intelligent or not ratable
1	Animal intelligence
2-4	Semi-intelligent
5-7	Low intelligence
8-10	Average (human) intelligence
11-12	Very intelligent
13-14	Highly intelligent
15-16	Exceptionally intelligent
17-18	Genius
19-20	Supra-genius
21+	Godlike intelligence

<
To compute the wisdom of non-psionic monsters, use the following table:
 

Intelligence of Creature	WIS Range
Low	2-8
Average	3-12
Very/Highly	4-16
Exceptional/Genius	8-18 (2d6 + 6)
Supra-Genius	8-20 (4d4 + 4)
Godlike	9-24 (3d6 + 6)

Creatures below low intelligence have negligible wisdom.

- DMG
>
 

ALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to
law or chaos, good or evil or towards neutral behavior
pcssibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with
regard to the general behavior of the monster when
encountered.
 

Q: Is it possible to get a captured
monster to change its alignment?

A: Intelligent monsters might very well
“turn a new leaf” if given the opportunity.
The change of heart might not last, however.
This depends on how well the monster
is treated and if its lot is really
improved by the alignment change.
(131.62)

T. Foster wrote:
...

...

But OTOH gnolls, bugbears, ogres, and trolls (i.e. the more powerful humanoid races) are all CE, IIRC.
This suggests perhaps that the weaker races are more lawfully-oriented as a matter of practicality -- the only way they can survive is to work together in an organized fashion with clearly delineated chains of command and such -- whereas the races that are more individually powerful don't feel the need for such cooperation and organization and can thus give freer reign to chaotic impulses.

Quite right:)

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracuwulf
Hi Gary,

In the 1st edition monster manual, kobolds, goblins, and orcs are all lawful evil and of low intelligence. Besides their particular hates (i.e., elves, gnomes, etc) What should differentiate these creatures tactics-wise when a party encounters each of them?
 

Howdy,

The named humanoids are not particularly different in their method of attack, only in the weapons they employ, their AC, and the chance to hit.
The LE alignment means that they are well-organized and can plan ambushes, fight in formation, and will likely obey orders from a superior.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by airwalkrr
This brings up an interesting question for me. Where did you get your inspriation for various humanoid races? Specifically orcs and goblins. We all know Tolkien used them extensively, but particularly on the alignment issue, what was your inspiration? Many old school gamers often argue for the LE alignment of orcs, but there are those who say they should be CE. I find myself on the fence on this issue. I like to think of my orcs as being very Tolkienesque and Turrosh Mak (as the paradigm for orcs in my campaign) certainly seems to be an organized and regimented kind of despot. But the wild feral nature of orcish combat often depicted in novels and movies does lend itself to making the CE argument worth considering. So I am often conflicted in wondering whether Mak should be a true paradigm, or rather an exception (and an exceptional exception at that!) to the rules.
 

Basically, I used my extensive background of reading history,
military history,
folklore,
fairy tales,
mythology,
SF,
horror,
and fantasy fiction to envisage humanoid races that would be interesting in the fantasy workd of the D&D game.

Lawful Evil means that the particular race is organized, cooperative within its own boundaries, and capable of training and discipline. Those are the principle qualities in regards to the aplication of the LE alignment. the rest is mainly window dressing--the deities, social organization, heirarchy, dress, etc.

CE forces do not advance in formation but atack in a wild mass. think of LE as somethink akin to the Roman Legion, CE as the swarm of screaming barbarians, and NE as something in betwee,

Cheers,
Gary
 

SIZE is abbreviated as: "S," smaller than a typical human;
"M," approximately man-sized (5' to 7' tall and of
approximate build); and "L," larger than man-sized in one
way or another and generally having greater mass.

PSlONlC ABILITY, and
    Attack/Defense Modes, indicate the general capabilities, if any, of a monster in these areas.
 

Q: Where are monsters’ psionic abilities
explained?

A: In the Players Handbook, starting on
page 110, and in the Dungeon Masters
Guide, starting on page 76.
(131.62)
 
 

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Geoffrey
    2. You've noted that you did not use psionics in your AD&D games. What did you do, then, with the monsters listed below?
    Did you just not use them?

    brain mole
    cerebral parasite
    intellect devourer
    shedu
    su-monster
 

Obviously I ignored tham as they affect only characters with psionic ability 
 

chrisspiller wrote:
...

LOL Oh, I agree with you here.
I have never had a psionically endowed PC in my campaign,
but I am looking forward to having some of the PCs face a few psionically endowed devils who are in the employ of Dispater in the not too distant future.
Making full use of their psionic disciplines should be fun ... for me

Pax,

Chris

Indeed,
That will teach them to have such PCs.

Cheers,
Gary

Q: Can humanoid monsters use
wands and other magical devices?

A: No, but witch doctor or shaman types (if
allowed for the humanoid race in question)
can do so; see page 40 of the DMG.
(131.63)

Q: Can humanoid monsters use
weapon specialization?

A: No; weapon specialization is for the
fighter class only. I suppose, however,
that some very extraordinary and rare
humanoids might actually have fighter
training, and so could specialize.
(131.63)
 

<Insects:
no sense of hearing (although anhkheg has vibratory sense which replaces hearing)
hate smoke>

<Undead:
Do not make sounds through a portal (PH, thieves)
Are immune to ESP (PH, ESP)
>

<Size:
* (Consider a horse to be equivalent to 6 humans for purposes of
this spell; conversely, halfling-sized creatures count as 1/2 human
apiece, and pixie-sized creatures are considered equivalent to 1/4 human each. - Flame Walk, UA)
* As well, a reference in the DDG to 20' being 'huge' ??
>

Driver wrote:
Hey, Gary. Some questions that have probably been addressed elsewhere.

1. It seems like some of the monsters in the Monster Manual are "metagame monsters," designed to discourage a certain type of PC behavior, or to attack certain PC archetypes. The two that come to mind while I'm sitting at work without my MM are the ear seeker for the former, and the rust monster (or any of the "psionic killers") for the latter.
 

Were these monsters designed to bedevil specific PCs (the guy who listens at every door; the guy who's loaded up with too much magical armor, weapons, and assorted other boodle; the guy who lucked out on his psionics roll) or parties? It just seems like some monsters were introduced for a specific in-game purpose, and I'm curious if you have any remembrance of why you introduced any "purpose-driven" monsters.

All monsters were purpose driven, the purpose to bring more challenge to playing the AD&D game. The specific ones you note were created to alow the DM to encourage more fast-paced and interesting play. Clwevel players quickly moved to an ear trumpet for listening at dungeon doors, but no easy answer for dealing with a rust monster was ever discovered--short of carrying a lot of poisoned scrap iron around;)
 
 

Quote:
2.) Demons and devils have a number of spell-like abilities defined as "at will". Does this mean that these abilities can be performed simultaneously with other actions (melee, spell-casting, etc.)? Does the same apply to the various magic items which can be activated "at will"?

Thanks once again for sharing your eminent wisdom, oh great Dungeon Master. :wink:

The "At will" refers to the fact that the creature in question can use the power whenever it chooses, unlimited times unless otherwise stated, with no need for memorization or a spell book or the like. It does not mean the user is able to do anything else save to will the power to take effect.
The same does apply to magic items that enable the weilder to use them at will. but willing the power to work requires the full attention of the one so doing.

Cheers,
Gary
 

TigerKing wrote:
First, thanks to the mad genius that inspred this humble author/designer.

Second, just a simple question (or two): what creature do you think you have made the most use of in your own games? And least, perhaps?
 

You are most welcome. It is always encouraging to learn that my creative work was used by someone in reaching their own potential 

I can not single out any particular creature, but as a class, the humanoids are far and away the most used in most everyone's campaigns.
The general dungeon clean-up crew critters are always popular in subterranean settings as well.
In the days of OAD&D, that would be the rats, carrior crawlers, gelatinous cubes, otyughs and neo-otyughs, plus the jellies, molds, puddings, and slimes

Cheers,
Gary
 

If you can not recall the stats for some critter in the OAD&D game or the LA system, make 'em up on the spot! Neither system is a rule-playing one 

Cheers,
Gary
 

predavolk wrote:
Hi Gary. A general question and a specific question if you don't mind.

General
How much do you believe different intelligent racies/species should know about common neighbours?(E.g., do humans living near troll-infested swamps all know that they should be burnt with oil? Would clerics know ghouls can paralyze with their touch? Humans living near orcs know that orcs don't like bright light?)

Specific
In D2/3, I'm curious how much would a certain non-aggressive group know about its more aggressive neighbours. Would that non-aggressive group know how to peacefully integrate into the hostile groups' cities for short periods by following the appropriate customs? I generally assume that locals groups know a lot of vital information about each other, peppered with a few (generally) less-vital myths and prejudices.

My biggest interest in the game is the psychology involved in the various NPCs, so I'd love to hear your take on these questions. Thanks.
 

Hello Predavolk,

There is no simple answer to those questions.
Much depends on the degree of superstition versus educational progress one assumes in the campaign.
For example in the Dark Ages superstition prevailed save in some religious institutions and in the aristocracy dwelling in urban centers.
By the late medieval period education had gained ground, and extended to the majority of the upperr class and city burghers.
Of course during the Ranaissance, education progressed fo rapidly that it left the clerical institutions behind, and the former bearers of the torch frequently became hinderers of knowledge.

Put another way, the degree of literacy and numeracy in the culture will dictate how much experience is actually recorded as learning available to others.

In my own campaigns I assume a fair degree of cultural enlightenment, and even illiterate yokels know very well the nature of local perils, disseminate the information orally.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Mr. Awesome wrote:
I'm curious... What humanoids did you tend to gravitate toward using in D&D the most? Everyone seems to have their favorites!
 

Heh!

I was an equal opportunity DM, and I used all of the standard ones in subterranean and outdoor settings--kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, bugbears, ogres, oger magi, and thje various giants.
I even used flinds and norkers in some of my later adventures as well a verbeeg.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
2.) What is your favorite D&D monster, either to throw at PCs or in general?
 

Ah, that's impossible for me to answer.
Circumstances alter cases.
I can wreak havoc with kobolds if the PC party is of low level.
Terry Kuntz's beholder is always a fun critter to bring into play.
A black pudding in the right place or a small dragon can work wonders in discomfiting the plans of a PC party.
Then again a trecherous NPC tends to be amusing... 

Not always using a set of stock monsters is a key to interesting and exciting adventures for sure.

Quote:
Originally posted by clockworkjoe
threemore questions: Which monster from d&d beside dragons and the various infernal species are your players scared of the most?

What was doing the cameo on futurama like?

And where did the beholder come from?

When it comes to the relative degree of fear amongst players caused by monsters, that depends on the expertise of the players, the level of the PCs, and the situation.
As I have mentioned, I have made a goodly number of players with low level PCs fear and respect the kobolds in my uppermost dungeon level.
Usually, though, the unidentified monster(s), undead when there is no cleric in the group, or NACs are the banes that cause nervous responses.

Fact is, when I was playing a PC a couple of years back we encountered a wind walker, and my 19th level m-u was not prepared for that, couldn't recall the means of dealing with that critter, and I was not exactly comfortable with the situation

In the FUTURAMA show episode I appeared in cartoon illustrated likeness, with my voice. I was part of a team led by Al Gore, and with me were Stephen Hawking and Nichelle Nichols. I can't really describe it adaquately, so you need to see it.

The beholder was the original conception of Terry Kuntz, Rob's brother, a regular in the early days of my campaign. I developed it a bit, but it's essentially his work

Cheerio,
Gary
 
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Felon
On a broader tangent: hindsight being 20/20, do you think that there were monsters in AD&D that genuinely qualified as an over-the-top attempt at creating the biggest, baddest, PC-kilingest beastie (i.e. creatures that were probably more fun to design than to fight)? [/B]
 

A very few of the AD&D monsters were meant to be near-unkillable. Those were done to pose a real challenge to PCs that were exceptionally well-equipped with magic items and of level above the usual--say 14th and above. After all, something had to be around that would pose a very real and difficult problem for such characters, no? Again, the game was meant to be such that no character could be invulnerable, unkillable. What fun would there be in such case?

Cheerio,
Gary
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Cha
Also, "brass dragon" just sounds better than "tin dragon". 

Although that could be a good name for a fairy dragon-type creature. I could also see "iron dragon" as a sort of dragon golem.
Ciao Ed,
 

Speaking of incredible monsters, such as an iron dragon golem would likely be, I have heard from wild-eyes players about some absolutely off-the-wall monsters that include the diamond dragon, the steel toad, and the arch-lamassu.
Perhaps I'll include their stats, as I recall them from hearing the account, in the compiled essays book of old D&D game adventure yards that Rob Kuntz and I plan to have published after we have run out of new stories to tell.
Likely a slender book titled Tales from Zagyg's Dungeon or sime such.

We were planning to add some additional yarns, material published elsewhere and some new accounts as well.
Those incredible monsters would suit the oberall humerous tone of the compilation.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VirgilCaine
After all this time, do you have a favorite monster you enjoy pitting your PCs against?

Heh, the one i am pitting against the group playing is my favorite of the moment, or else one I am making up to surprise everybody

Cheers,
Gary

Thank you.[/QUOTE]
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Mouser
Hey Gary, here's my real question for the day 

I was wondering if the unique monsters that showed up in some of your monsters were ever sprung on your hapless players outside of their original settings.
I am thinking primarily of the Drow, Kuo-Toa, Svirfneblin, and even the beasties from Barrier Peaks.
Did these monsters ever make it outside their original confines making their way to Castle Greyhawk or other such places your players explored?

Gray Mouser
 

'Mouser, it would be perfect if your actual anme were Harry Fischer 

Anyway, while I was never loath to proliferate critters in my campaign, none that you mention were ever much outside the realm in which they were introduced.
Of course.
the vast labyrinth of the underdark means that drow and the rest might pop up in any subterranean place.
I really liked mind flayers as the disguised evil manipulators of mankind, so they appeared in several places in my campaign.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by palleomortis
Hey, I got a question for Ya, Gary. I have always wondered what your favorite creature was in the game. (And if it is NOT a dragon, wich is your favorite dragon?)
 

For all you others, thanx for the advice. Is there a way I could turn that into a class or race?(the lepricon)
 

Well, Pilgrim...

Much as with naming favorites if any sort, I have to state I have no favorite monster...aside from the one the PC team is assailing at any given time, of course.

This is not to say that I do not develop special antagonists for the PCs to get to know and fear, loathe, and seek to be rid of. Obmi the dwarf was my favorite for a time, and of course I made sure that the players would not be able to have their characters end his career. The "Old Guard" kobolds were a lot of fun too <laughing>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grazzt
But would monsters have ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, etc) like characters? 

Only humanoid ones of exceptional sort and very exceptional other sorts.
Who wants to spend forever figuring out what monsters' stats are and then have to employ them in the game?

Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mycanid
Yeesh ... boy, do I agree with your sentiments on THIS one. :\
 

In my opinion the best wat for a DM to manage monsters is to know what their type is, generaly what an average one of that sort can do, and then...WING IT!

Cheerio.
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
I take it the revisions you planned for monsters related above were part of your effort to "beef up" monsters because of this situation.

Were there any other rules tweaks or general tactics you developed to add challenge against "top players" . . ?
 

That assumption is correct.

When the monsters were consolidated into a revised MM volume or two, I planned to give a point sunning and/or intellect rating for them so as to enable the DM to use that nformation when acting for the monsters. (After opinbdering the matter for a time I have done this in the supplement to the LA game.)

That's about all I can recall off the top of my head. It has been over 20 years... 

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolius
Gary,

Were there any beasties from the 1e days (and prior... I respect anyone who puts a tuatara in their monster lists) that you considered to be "classic", that never seemed to catch on with the masses?
That is something I had not considered.

Upon reflection I have to say no, the "architypical" monsters were pretty well accepted across the board and included by DMs...includine many very clever variations and permutations.

What astonished me was the players' being smitten with the drow, desiring to play a PC of that race.
I devised them as a most unlikable, ruthlessly evil subterranean race.
To cater to the demand, the Drow were made into realtively more warm and fuzzy sorts.
I can only liken that into changing Hannibal Lector into a visiting nurse.

All that said, do you find that some "classic" critters to be generally ignored?

Cheers,
Gary
 

The many monsters I devised for the A/D&D games came from a variety of sources including mythology, legends, medieval bestiaries, folklore, fairy tales, and authored fiction.
The demon names were dug up form medieval sources in the main.
The various colors and metallic-hued dragons I made up mainly on my own, the other bad ones being permutations of the red, fire-breathing drake, the metallic dragons coming from.
Of course Bahamut was based off of the Biblical name Behemoth, but Tiamut's five-heads were inspired only by the five colors of Evil dragon.
not the beast with seven heads and 10 horns that the Scarlet Whore of Babylon rode on before she was devoured by it from the Book of Revelation.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
Were there any design features of that game line you though would be desirable for inclusion in a revised AD&D game?
 

After over 20 years, who can remember that sort of detail?
Creating monsters I have dealt with continually iver the intervening years, pondering other changes I have not.
For example, I couldn't give details of the new PC classes I intended to add unless I came across the notes I made on them.

Cheers,
Gary

Comments
For honor and glory!