ul

[Miqueo Snyder]

When brave adventurers face the dangers of the world, they want something to show for it. This supplement provides individual loot for each monster in the Monster Manual, as well as a basic crafting and harvesting system that works well with 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons.

With this supplement, these brave adventurers will be able to craft the hide, teeth, and claws of their enemies into dangerous weapons and equipment that is sure to mark them as legendary heroes of the realm.

What is the meaning behind all of the treasure types monsters have listed in OD&D and AD&D? I know that Treasure Type A represents Humans and the things they collect, while Treasure Type H represents the gigantic hoard a dragon or other greedy large monster might collect, but what kind of monsters do the other treasure types represent?

I haven't been able to find as coherent a pattern with the others on my own. I list this for both Original (White Box) and Advanced (1st Edition) D&D since one grew out of the other. I figure the answers are similar enough that they could be answered at the same time.

H is still the hoard treasure for Dragons. Interesting the white dragons don't get this treasure type. Along with the Dragons the Archdevil Geryon and the Guardian Naga have this treasure type.

I Interestingly the Roc has been removed from I but more creatures were assigned to this treasure type than OD&D. It also was used a lot with creatures with multiple treasure types, probably because of the Gem and Jewelry values.

J to N are meant to be assigned to individual monsters. When listed as part of a lair it looks to be incidental treasure. This especially clear for the various varieties of Giant Spiders.

U is a high value treasure type with Gems, Jewelry and magic items. The elite monsters that get this are Orcus, Asmodeus, Tiamat the Chromatic Dragon, and interestingly enough Ixitxachitl Guards and Androsphinxs.

Z is similar to H with a smaller number of magic items the monsters that get this are Men Dervishes, Men Nomads, and Will-o-the-wisp. Looks like there is a lot of wealth hidden underneath those camel sacks.

Key to your conundrum ("I haven't been able to find as coherent a pattern"), is there isn't a coherent pattern. At least not a systematic one. I'll endeavor not to repeat too much of what @Majestic12 has said with his answer.

Like Weapon Speed Factor (pp.68-69, 95 in the 2nd edition Players Handbook), or Weapon Type vs Armor Type Modifiers (p.90, Table 52 in the 2nd edition Players Handbook), the popularity of the Treasure Type tables/matrices can be illustrated with the following formula:

If dice rolls indicate that a particular treasure component is not in the monster's lair, it is simply not there; it is thus quite possible to gain no treasure from defeating a monster in it's lair, despite the fact that a treasure type is indicated.

Treasure types are based on the appearance of a mean number of monsters of that particular type, as indicated by the "number appearing". In instances where fewer, or more, monsters of that type are encountered, the treasure should be reduced, or increased, in value.

First problem, as can be deduced from literally every published adventure and RPG game endorsed by TSR/Wizards of the Coast; there is always treasure to be gained from defeating a given monster in published adventures, table top or online. Why should this ever be different often enough for a home campaign to need the randomness and complexity of a Treasure Table?

As you can see from the percentages given in the Monster manual appendix Treasure Types table, a kobold lair of 400 individuals has a 1-in-40 chance of having no treasure. A kobold lair of 40 individuals has the same chance, 1-in-40.

But kobolds are guaranteed to be personally carrying 3-24 cp each (treasure type J is 3-24 cp); even though 1-in-4 lairs will have 0 cp in the tribal coffers! What? That makes no sense. Must be 1-in-4 kobold tribes are thoroughly socialist (I kid but I trust you see what I mean).

Worse, in the case of zero lair hoard, even adjusting the lair amount upwards for a tribe well above the mean value, as suggested in the various monster manuals, gives no increase in actual treasure amount (multiply by zero gets you zero every time with real numbers).

Thoughtless placement of powerful magic items has been the ruination of many a campaign. Not only does this cheapen what should be rare and precious, it gives player characters undeserved advancement and empowers them to become virtual rulers of all they survey. This is in part the fault of the writer, who deeply regrets not taking the time and space in D&D [a.k.a. OD&D] to stress repeatedly the importance of moderation.

Beyond what this question asks are a few related outsider opinions about how the game has changed since it's inception. These opinions, while my own, have been gleaned through many long discussions with those who have played for decades and from reading through many old game products. Here goes...

You will find that questions around assigning monster treasure get even more confusing when considering the 2nd edition of the game. While some of the wiggle words are still there in the Monstrous Compendium,

That last bit made no sense to me or anyone I talked to who played back in the day. Think about it, some of those monsters only live in dungeons so how could their numbers be "much smaller" than what is given in their description?

Now, if both DM and players enjoy a particular type of campaign and are having a good time, there is no problem to fix. However, more often than not, these two extreme adventuring styles lead to game problems.

Then along comes 3rd edition, and it systematizes most everything about the game including monsters and their treasure. Rules Lawyering has always been a thing but now with 3rd edition the Power Gamer and/or Munchkin come into their own in ways that were not possible in prior editions.

The 4th edition levels the playing field by smoothing the highs and lows found in previous editions. Apparently most people found it stultifying since they left in droves; many going on to play the 3rd edition clone Pathfinder and many more going to other games/hobbies.

As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game... When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy... As the author I also realize there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for the players, rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary.

The best chart I ever saw for this was in a DMG.. BUT was 2nd Edition DnD (Page 133 Table 84 since I had to find that damn chart so much in the old days). Pretty much that chart best sums it up in one place all nice and neat. Do remember that the chart while in 2nd Ed. was almost exactly the same as the previous charts just easier to find than the previous editions.

The letters themselves were type "A-I" were lair treasures while "J-Z" were Individual and small lair types. They had no meaning of "H = Horde" or "F = Fey" ...that just was people ideas that didnt know about the tables or assumed (When I first started gaming this was even told to me that H=Horde when I ran a game I found out it didn't. Stated this tidbit for any who may have been led astray).

2. J-Z: Individual creature or intelligent types. These are more or less smaller and sometimes with the knowledge that it needs to be easy to transport. You can have several of these types to make a larger hoard.

The chart itself was cleared up in 2nd but how it goes is when a creature has a letter you would look at the chart and roll a percentile to see if it had that item and work your way across. Once you found out what was there in thier lair/hoard you'd roll to see how much of the coins/gems/items or what type of item was in it.

The chart was varied and was made as a "General" idea of what was in a hoard/lair. The letters rank up and the higher they went the better the gear. Also if a "-" was in there. the DM most the time could choose if it was and how much of the items with a "-" was in the hoard. This way the DM could balance or increase the horde to meet a creatures idea of worth. (Tidbit: some of the original books even noted Smaug and the hobbits and the value of the hoard through these charts but had to be removed due to copyright issue. I have two of them as proof they had it in there ;) )

It's important to understand that the Treasure types go back to the earliest roots of the game when the DM was expected to be randomly generating much of the gaming content. The tables are present in the earliest drafts of the game (Mornard Fragments, Dalluhn/Beyond this Point be Dragons Mss.) and are apparently Gygax's expansion of Arneson's Dragon type treasures (First Fantasy Campaign 77:89) to cover all monster types.

Roll again for every room and space. A roll of 1-3 in those rooms or spaces with monsters in them indicates some form of treasure is present. A roll of 1 in a room or space which is unoccupied indicates that there is some form of treasure there

Thus only 50% of monsters had treasure, and the presence of treasure had to be established before the treasure itself was determined. In the usual case of a monster in its lair, The DM was expected to turn to the treasure types - we see this clearly stated in Holmes D&D.

c80f0f1006