First, I must say that I’m surprised (and flattered) that a number of readers are actually interested in seeing our five color Wizards & Warriors homebrew. I also want to thank those who have sent words of encouragement. I was so pleased that I rushed off to Staples and had a few copies of what we’re calling our Beta edition printed up. Right now it’s 41 pages and mostly complete, leaving room for several pages of appendices with lots of random tables in our planned 48-page complete game guide.

We’re planning on getting in some serious playing with this revision, and hopefully those plans come to pass.

As an example of what I’m talking about when I say I’m worried about compatibility with “normal” versions of the game, while also claiming that our game isn’t really all that different, I’m showing our Treasure Class table (You can click for a closer look):

Lord Kilgore's Wizards & Warriors Treasure Class Table

Lord Kilgore's Wizards & Warriors Treasure Class Table

Now, it looks more or less pretty much like a standard treasure table from any of the standard versions of the game. And it should, as it used the Hoard Class table in Labyrinth Lord as its basis. But a few things are different, the first of which might be the lack of an electrum piece column. There isn’t one, as our game uses only copper, silver, and gold as standard coins, with platinum also available. It’s not that electrum pieces don’t exist, but they aren’t considered standard enough to include in a standard treasure table.

The next thing that probably jumps out is the fact that the lair treasures are listed in hundreds of coins instead of thousands. This is partly because I’m a stingy DM but mostly because our game, which uses a version of the Roll to Advance experience system, doesn’t need piles of treasure in order to get characters the XP they need to advance in level. Experience is gained by adventuring (period) and the treasure recovered while doing so does not have a meta-game value. Also, it should be noted that equipment prices are (mostly) unchanged, so that 10gp sword is a noticeable investment and each copper is worth stooping to pick up. No more leaving the ogre treasure behind because “it’s only silver.” We also adjusted the value of gems and jewelry down significantly.

I’ll admit that we don’t have a lot of play in with this, so it probably needs a bit of adjusting.

Finally, we’ve adjusted all of the d% rolls into d20 rolls and the number of magic items has been changed to a die roll instead of a fixed number. Though some adjustment of probabilities and quantities was done, overall I think the results are fairly similar to the original.

So, while it has a number of major changes that make it stand apart from the standard treasure tables, it isn’t unrecognizable and it isn’t impossible to use. In fact, by simply multiplying the coin totals by ten and using a standard table for gem and jewelry values, it could be used as-is.

Tags: ,

4 Comments to “Wizards & Warriors Treasure”

  1. Timeshadows says:

    Looks perfectly playable to me. 🙂

  2. Anthony says:

    I’ve been meaning to ask this question about your Roll to Advance system, but I can’t seem to leave a comment on your older posts.

    Regardless, how do you handle risk versus reward? For example, mechanically speaking, what is the incentive to take on tougher challenges if every session/encounter gives the same amount of experience?

    That is really the only sticking point I had with your Roll to Advance system. If I could get around it, I would also adopt it for my game.

    Here’s a few blog posts of my own that spells out my objection a little further if you wanted to take a look:

    Roll to fail

    and my own proposed implementation:

    Roll to Advance
    Further Considerations

    • Kilgore says:

      You’re correct that there is no mechanical prod for PCs to adventure. They’ll get the reward (an XP and a chance to roll to advance) at the end of each session regardless of what they do, whether they kill fifty bugbears and haul back a wagonload of gold or whether they kill one kobold and take his two coppers.

      If PCs and the players that control them are motivated only by the XP values of what they do, adventures are going to be flat no matter what experience system is used.

      This ties into something I’ve noted that I want to write about at greater length in a post, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

      FWIW, one thing that was mentioned somewhere in the blog posts on the Roll to Advance system (but didn’t make it into the PDF) is that a DM would be fair if he only awarded the XP and allowed the roll to advance for characters who “took an active part” in the adventure.

      • Anthony says:

        There is definitely a balancing act between PCs solely motivated by reward and the ‘meta-game’ aspect of diving into the dungeon because we are playing D&D tonight. Going to one extreme or the other makes for either a game devoid of ‘fun’ or an atmosphere that is too casual.

        I think the casualty here is a significant part of the tactical and strategic planning that followed along into D&D from its wargaming roots. That aspect is what I really do not want to lose.

        Roll to Advance is a great way to reward sessions so that each adventure is not driven by mortal combat and looting. I’m just searching for a way to work in risk and reward for when the game DOES come to hack, slash, loot…