1e, and 2e monsters for use in D&D Next.

So in theory it seems like monsters from the 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D should have at least some ability to transfer over to Next. Hit Dice are similar enough, damage rolls are still made by the same few dice, multiple attacks have been restored to some monsters, and it should be possible to convert descending AC into ascending AC. What I can't make heads or tails of, is the XP value placed on a monster. Has anyone who's actually decent at math spent the time to figure out what in the world is going on? I want to use Next for a game, but don't want to rely solely on the play-test bestiary. If there's a way to figure out the appropriate XP values for monsters, I am authorized to award you up to 7 internets if you'll share it with me.

Don't let XP values stand in your way. It's not and never was an exact science, and it's barely worth the effort to get right anyway, as XP is merely a pacing mechanism. Given the supposed flatness of the D&D Next math, you really shouldn't need to worry about leveling the characters at all.

XP values haven't been finalized yet. That's an ongoing part of the alpha test.

Just use the xp as is. If the pc's are leveling slow give bonus xp. If they are leveling faster than you want trim the xp back before awarding. As the others mentioned, xp is a pacing tool.

XP awards for 1st & 2nd edition monsters aren't really a very good yardstick to measure level advancement, especially in an edition so far removed from them. Those early editions were designed with the idea that most XPs would be earned through treasure acquired, not monsters defeated.

Didnt 1e and 2e give xp for gold also? I think it was 1 xp for 1 gp in value. That would allow you to use a creature with a xp of 50 but has 200gp give a total of 250xp.

Metroknight said: Didnt 1e and 2e give xp for gold also? I think it was 1 xp for 1 gp in value. That would allow you to use a creature with a xp of 50 but has 200gp give a total of 250xp. Yes, that's correct. Same thing for gems & jewelry acquired, the characters received equal the gold piece value in experience points. As for magic items found, gp and xp values were different but they were still generous.

From what I understand, xp for gold wasn't as much of a factor in 2e. At least, that's the way it seems. I haven't played 2e yet. In Basic and 1e that was definitely the case though.

Billy R. said: From what I understand, xp for gold wasn't as much of a factor in 2e. At least, that's the way it seems. I haven't played 2e yet. In Basic and 1e that was definitely the case though. 1xp per each gold piece acquired still existed in 2e, although it was described as being optional for the DM. They made up for it by giving the DM more guidelines for awarding xp based on the successful completion of an adventure. They also re-worked the formula for determining the xp value of monsters defeated, based not just on hit die but also extra for various special abilities a monster might have. Xp for magic items acquired was still pretty generous in 2e too, that may not have even changed at all from 1e.

Just let go of monster and gold based xp. Its so 20th century. At the end of the adventure award the party a flat amount for quest resolution. We stopped adding up xp for monsters and treasure a long time ago and never looked back. For those that love the gratification of a little xp every time you kill a monster there is always Diablo.

But I love Diablo, and I like treasure XP. It may be old to you, but it's new to me. (Not Diablo, treasure XP.)

I didn't understand the point of the 1 XP per GP conversion in Basic, since it seemed like that reduced the number of monsters one would get to fight, and cause people to jump through levels quickly. Years later I understood what the rules didn't make clear, which was that treasure represented an "alternate goal" one that could be achieved without killing the monsters, and one that could be lost without being killed by the monsters. So, while I don't want to see the gold for experience exchange brought back, I can somewhat appreciate the usefulness of it, even though the game itself didn't seem to understand (or bother to explain) that usefulness.