Which of the following formats do you prefer:
Format #1 - TRADITIONAL
No. Enc.: 1d6 (1d6)
% In Lair: 15%
Format #2 - DUNGEON/WILDERNESS VARIANT:
Dungeon Enc: 85% horde (1d6), 15% nest (1d8)
Wilderness Enc: 85% horde (1d6), 15% nest (1d8)
Format #3 - WANDERING/LAIR VARIANT:
% In Lair: 15%
Wandering Enc: Horde (1d6) / Horde (1d6)
Lair Encounter: Nest (1d8) / Nest (1d8)
Format #4 - HYBRID VARIANT:
% In Lair: 15%
Wandering Enc: 1d6 (dungeon horde) / 1d6 (wilderness horde)
Lair Enc: 1d8 (dungeon nest) / 1d8 (wilderness nest)
#4 offers the most information and has a suggested workflow; figure out the percent in lair, if they’re wandering, use the dungeon or wilderness wandering value. If its in lair, use the dungeon or wilderness lair value.
Unfortunately, it creates the most work for you guys and puts you in the role of defining the implied setting through creating these data points.
I think I agree with Beedo, but I also like #2. It’s about as easy to understand as 4, but a bit more compact.
Beedo, the work (data points) has all been done, so it’s merely a case of what presents most nicely.
#4 with the axis swapped, a.k.a. #2 with % in Lair explicit.
% in Lair: 15%
Dungeon Enc: 1d6 horde / 1d8 nest
Wilderness Enc: 1d6 horde / 1d8 nest
The % in Lair number is specifically referenced elsewhere, so not calling it out is troublesome (#2).
I like Dungeon/Wilderness as the organizers rather than Wandering/Lair because it makes the comparative sizes of the wandering numbers vs. lair numbers obvious in the given area, and if I’m running a dungeon I can just ignore the wilderness line. This is also more easily expandable if you decide to add further breakdowns at some point - you could easily tack on Sea Enc., City Enc., and so on by adding a single line.
Undercrypt’s solution seems best to me.
I’m with Undercrypt. Having % in Lair clearly stated saves a step of extracting it from #2 and allows monsters to be 100% in lair, and the non-axis-swapped #4 has the most parenthetical tags to process.
I like #2.
Great. That’s how we’ll do it. Thanks for the help.
While you’re improving the monster listings, would it be possible to get the stats in a reasonable order? The traditional order is less than ideal, something closer to the order needed might be nice. Maybe like…
% in Lair
No. Enc.
Alignment
Morale
Movement
Hit Dice
Armor Class
Save
Attacks
Damage
Special Abilities
Treasure Type
XP
Here’s an example of how we’re going to be presenting monsters. [Final terminology of gang, warband, etc. may still change].
ORC
% In Lair: 35%
Dungeon Enc: Gang (2d4) / Lair (1 warband)
Wilderness Enc: Warband (2d6 gangs) / Village (1d10 warbands)
Alignment: Chaotic
Movement: 120’ (40’)
Armor Class: 3
Hit Dice: 1
Attacks: 1 (weapon)
Damage: 1d6 or weapon
Save: F1
Morale: 0
Treasure Type: G (per warband)
XP: 10
Orcs are grotesque beastmen bred as warriors from men and wild boars by the ancient Zaharans. They stand just over 6’ tall, with pig-like faces, reddish eyes, and black hair. Orcs prefer wearing vivid colors that many humans would consider unpleasant, such as blood red, mustard yellow, yellow-green, and deep purple. Their equipment is dirty and unkempt, though serviceable. Orcs are primarily subterranean, but they are also nocturnal and may be found on the surface at night. They suffer a penalty of -1 to attack throws when in sunlight.
Orcs are exceedingly cruel and delight in the torment and murder of others. They are also exceptionally greedy, which makes them particularly attractive to chaotic rulers who hire orcs as mercenary soldiers. Orcs prefer to fight with scimitars, spears, flails, axes, spears, polearms, shortbows, and crossbows.
Each orc gang will be led by a champion with AC4, 1+1 Hit Die, 8 hit points, and a +1 bonus to damage rolls from strength. Each orc warband will be led by a sub-chieftain with AC5, 2HD, 12 hit points, and a +1 bonus to damage rolls. An orc lair or village will be led by a chieftain with AC6, 4 Hit Dice, 20 hit points, and a +2 bonus to damage rolls. As long as the chieftain is alive, the orcs will gain a +2 to morale rolls. Orc lairs and villages will have females and young equal to 100% and 200% of the number of males, respectively. Female orcs fight as goblins, while young orcs do not fight
Because of their large size, orc villages (wilderness lairs) may have additional creatures present. There is a 50% chance an orc village will be guarded by 1d4+1 ogres and a 25% chance for 1d4 trolls. Orcs keep slaves of various human, demi-human, and humanoid races, so there will be 1d20 prisoners per 100 orcs in the village. In addition, a village has a 75% chance of a shaman being present, and a 50% chance of a witch doctor. A shaman is equivalent to a bodyguard statistically, but has Clerical abilities at level 1d6. A witch doctor is equivalent to a champion statistically, but has Mage abilities at level 1d4.
I really like Undercrypts suggestion. Its grouped in a manner that makes sense. The spaces, too, are important making it easier to find things at a glance. My only tweak on this might be to move Morale higher than Alignment. But even without that change I would prefer Undercrypts suggestion.
By the way, I am happy with the top portion layout:
% In Lair: 35%
Dungeon Enc: Gang (2d4) / Lair (1 warband)
Wilderness Enc: Warband (2d6 gangs) / Village (1d10 warbands)
More pondering on the example.
% In Lair: 35%
Dungeon Enc: Gang (2d4) / Lair (1 warband)
Wilderness Enc: Warband (2d6 gangs) / Village (1d10 warbands)
On the one hand, I like seeing the gang-warband-village relationships.
On the other hand, it’s all bundled, and just looking at it I couldn’t tell you how many orcs are in a village. It works out to…
(2 * ((2 * 1d10) d6)) d4
…which is anywhere from 4d4 to 240d4, with an guesstimate average of about 60d4. At which point, if I’m at the table, I toss out all of those lovely connections and roll maybe 4d100 for the number of orcs. I have to wonder if simple listing like “40-400” wouldn’t actually be more useful.
Hey Undercrypt,
The reason for doing it that way is because it allows us to link the number of orcs present, and the amount of treasure present, directly into the organizational structure of the lair.
For instance: “Each orc gang will be led by a champion with AC4, 1+1 Hit Die, 8 hit points, and a +1 bonus to damage rolls from strength. Each orc warband will be led by a sub-chieftain with AC5, 2HD, 12 hit points, and a +1 bonus to damage rolls. An orc lair or village will be led by a chieftain with AC6, 4 Hit Dice, 20 hit points, and a +2 bonus to damage rolls.”
I don’t think this creates a lot of pain, really. For example, say you are building a village. First you roll 1d10. You get a 4. So there are 4 warbands, meaning 4 sub-chieftains. Then you roll 2d6. Each warband has 6 gangs, meaning 4x6=24 champions and 24 gangs. Then you roll 2d4 and get a 5. Each gang has 5 orcs, meaning 24x5=120 orcs. And as the Judge you instantly have a nice organizational structure you can use.
This set-up is also beautifully optimized for a web-based “dynamic beastman lair generator” where you select type, wilderness or dungeon, and hit “go” and it spits out number, organization, and treasure.
That makes sense, tying it into the treasure. And yes, excellent for spreadsheets/apps.
Spam is getting cleverer…
Good catch, demoss! Deleted.
I like number four too it’s nice to see the various numbers encounted in diffrent situations. Darn useful for randomly generating encouters either on the fly or ahead of time.