WATER & WINESKIN BLUES

[This post is from five years ago--just pushing through now]

With Furthermoor on hiatus, I recently started playing in a game, and the DM is using 2nd edition AD&D. Outside of how long it takes to make a character, it got me thinking a bit more about the differences between B/X and AD&D. First, this post has nothing to do with the AD&D game I was playing in, but something that came to mind while looking through the 2nd edition PDF.

Video Games and AD&D

While I can enjoy a video game like Skyrim for what it is--knowing I will never actually finish it or care that much about the story--it's simply the video game equivalent to AD&D. In other words, while folks playing AD&D when it first came out could enjoy a game of Zork on their Radio Shack computer, Skyrim (I'm using Skyrim as the all-encompassing example here) brings AD&D to the video game console in a modern way that works, though the game is the same for everybody, and let's face it, like many video games today, it looks extremely realistic (versus, say Minecraft, which is also obviously heavily influenced by D&D), even if it's in a fantasy world. Though Skyrim looks realistic, however, a player can technically walk for days without sleep, can walk for days without eating food (even if they have tons of it), etc....

If food and sleep don't matter much to Skyrim, why include them? Perhaps for the budding chef gamer who prefers to play Skyrim to collect food items and cook up interesting stuff? Why not? For me at least, none of these realistic elements really make the game any more fun, in fact, these tend to be the parts of the game that seem most like real life and work (no, I am not a chef, but just sayin'), exactly what one is generally distancing themselves from when playing a game. This is why I prefer B/X (I'm using B/X as the consensus here, despite the fact that on this blog I'm generally focused on a weird mash-up of Holmes/Mentzer) when I'm DM, versus anything too much more complex. From my experience, at least, complex tends to mean more realistic, and while I can love realistic in say a hex-and-counter Mexican War game, it isn't what I enjoy about D&D at all, in fact, I find that the more complex D&D gets, for both the players and the DM, the expense is the fun, and the spontaneous nature that the game originally came from.

Water and Wineskins

Take a look at the wineskin. In Holmes, the equipment list takes up the bottom third of a page in the back of the book. There's a "Water/Wine Skin" that goes for 1 gp. A quart of wine is the same price. Furthermore, standard rations cost 5 gp for one adventurer for a week.

It's only with regard to encumbrance, that wine and water are mentioned elsewhere in Holmes, and it's during discussion of where things are on a character's body, however, this appears to simply highlight editing to Holmes with regard to the imminence of AD&D ("1 quart wine (in pack)... 1 water skin, shoulder slung, right side,"), for the whole of this encumbrance section is missing from Holmes's original manuscript.

This seems telling with regard to various playing styles of D&D. Holmes, an early admirer and passionate player of the game, respected the players themselves to come up with the game that suited them, but then the published rule shift into more complexity, which meant more realism. In Holmes there are no rules for water consumption, ration consumption, etc. It's left up to the DM. One can assume a beginning character will buy a week's worth of rations, but what if they don't? Does it really matter? It could... What if the DM knows the character/group doesn't have water, they've been delving for a while, and they may soon enter a room of pools (B1: In Search of the Unknown came within the initial Holmes boxed set)? If they are thirsty, and told they may die because they have no water, this room of pools could be super interesting, and a highlight, especially given they therefore have a solid reason to test more than one of the pools. Though the rules say nothing of this deeper angle to the puzzle, that is the way of the Basic... This is a wonderful example of how thirst/lack of water, while yes realistic, is interesting simply because of the possible repercussions gamewise.

Take a look at Mentzer, specifically the section of sample characters in the Players Manual which stresses their use in "group adventures": a cleric equipped with 2 full waterskins; a dwarf with 1 full wineskin; a magic-user with 1 waterskin and 1 wineskin, both full; an elf with neither; a thief with neither; and then a halfling with 1 wineskin and 1 waterskin, both full. While it may be assumed that the elf and the thief would be members of a party with a water or wineskin, who knows... Furthermore, similar to Holmes, with no other rules present, the rations and water/wine options end up more for the DM to play on versus the deepening of character realism. It should also be noted that Mentzer suggests the possible use of water and/or wine in disarming some types of traps.

In other words, what makes dealing with rations/water/wine fun, and somewhat interesting, is not realism. It's because a thoughtful DM perhaps has certain puzzle pieces in their game that could possibly fit in with those factors. Otherwise, it's a pointless wash...

THE SPIRIT OF HOLMENTZER

"Dungeon Master, I'd like to be a Chef Magic-user Weretiger, please."

HOLMENTZER ENCUMBRANCE

[I've never been much into bookkeeping re: encumbrance, and have always hated in video games when I have to spend time choosing what I want to keep and what I want to drop. That said, as annoying as it can be, I wanna give the rules a try, mainly for the humorous possibilities they offer.]

[Holmentzer Players Handbook]

HOLMENTZER TRAPS

More and more, I'm seeing how Mentzer's Basic Players Manual can come in handy for Holmentzer.

[Holmentzer Players Handbook]

HOLMENTZER MAGIC-USERS

HOLMENTZER MAGIC-USERS

Humans who elect to become magic-users must not wear armor and can carry only a dagger for protection. They can, however, use almost all magical items, but not magical swords and other magical arms other than daggers. They have the advantage (shared with clerics and some elves*) of being able to work magical spells. At the start, however, they can cast only one spell and must advance a level in experience before they can learn another. Thus the magic-user starts out as an extremely weak character, but if he survives and rises in experience, he becomes increasingly powerful... Magic-users, of course, may be either... lawful or chaotic, and most of their spells remain the same. - Holmes, pg. 6

The magic-user acquires books containing the spells, the study of which allows him to memorize a spell for use. He can then throw the spell by saying the magic words and making gestures with his hands. This means that a magic-user bound and gagged cannot use his magic... A magic-user must concentrate on his spell, so he can not cast a spell and walk or run at the same time, and he certainly can not cast a spell while engaged in combat. Then, after all that, the spell may not work! - Holmes, pg. 13

To learn a spell, the magic-user must be completely rested. A good night's sleep is enough. The character then gets out the spell book and studies the spells to be used, which takes an hour or less... In more advanced games, adventures may last more than a day. In such cases, a magic-user can study spells each morning, if completely rested. A mule should be brought along on long adventures, to carry the spell book^ along with normal equipment. But beware! If the book is lost... - Mentzer Basic PM, pg. 38

Also, from Mentzer:

Magic-users never trade spells, nor do they ever allow anyone (except their teachers) to read their spell books.

Magic-users also have the following abilities, per Holmes:

SCROLL GENERATION

Scrolls are written in magic runes that fade from the page as they are read, so a scroll also can only be used once. Magic users may make a scroll of a spell they already "know" (i.e. have in their magic book) at a cost of 100 gold pieces and 1 week's work for each spell of the first level, 200 gold pieces and 2 weeks for a second level spell (if the magic-user is third level), etc.

MAGIC RESEARCH

It is also possible for a magic-user, through the expenditure of much money for research, to create new spells. The Dungeon Master must agree that the spell is appropriate to the level of the character trying to create it, the magic-user must spend 2000 gold pieces per level of spell and one week of time. He then has a 20% chance of success... [if] the spell research was successful, the magic-user writes it into his book and may use the spell...

Lastly, once more from Mentzer Basic Players Manual, pg. 38:

If a new spell is found on a scroll, it may be added to the magic-user's book - but this can only be done once for each scroll spell, and uses up the scroll in the process. If the spell is of too high a level to be cast, it cannot be put into the book... A spell on a scroll may be saved, to put into a book at a future time. [However] any magic-user can cast a spell found on a scroll as if it were memorized, regardless of the level of the spell.

For info on what spells a beginning magic-user has in his or her 1st level spell book, see HERE.

* In our game, as all PCs are high elves, they have magic abilities. Any elf can multi-class as a magic-user + another qualified class; however, an elf may also choose to be a magic-user only. In this case, they follow the spell book generation rules as a magic-user, except they use the elf spell list. Otherwise, for a multi-classed elf, the DM will let you know what spells are in your book.

^ Still trying to figure out how I want to deal with this "lugging of the spell book bit", see HERE for some thoughts (toward bottom of post), but gonna sleep on it.

HOLMENTZER THIEVES

HOLMENTZER THIEVES

Thieves are humans* with special abilities to strike a deadly blow from behind, climb sheer surfaces, hide in shadows, filch items and pick pockets, move with stealth, listen for noises behind closed doors, pick locks and remove small traps such as poisoned needles. Every thief has these abilities, but as they progress in experience they become better and better at it... Thieves are not truly good and are usually referred to as neutral... so that other members of an expedition should never completely trust them and they are quite as likely to steal from their own party as from the Dungeon Master's monsters. Thieves can wear nothing stronger than leather armor and can not carry shields. They can use all the weapons of a fighting man including magic swords and magic daggers. Thieves above the third level of experience can read magic scrolls and books and 80% of languages so that treasure maps, etc. are easy for them. - Holmes, pg. 6

* Halflings, dwarves, & elves, can also be thieves.

HOLMENTZER FIGHTING MEN

HOLMENTZER FIGHTING MEN

Any human character can be a fighting man and all halflings and dwarves are members of the fighter class, unless they opt to be thieves.* Elves are a combination of fighting man and magic-user...^ Fighting men can use any weapon and wear any kind of armor including magic weapons and magic armor. They can not do other kinds of magic, however. As they advance in experience they increase their "hit dice" and are harder to kill. After they reach the fourth level of experience they also increase their ability to get hits on an opponent... - Holmes, pg. 6

* Halflings & dwarves can choose to be paladins or healers (if they qualify), instead of a fighting man or thief.

^ An elf character may choose to be a magic-user only, not advancing as a fighting man. If they do multi-class, but not as a fighting man/magic-user, they can be thief/m-u, paladin/m-u, or healer/m-u (provided they qualify).

HOLMENTZER CLERICS

HOLMENTZER CLERICS

Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to one or more of the gods. Depending on the god, the cleric may be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Clerics have their own special spells... They may... wear armor, including magic armor, and carry non-edged weapons such as the mace or the quarter staff.  No swords or bows and arrows can be employed, for the cleric is forbidden by his religion from the drawing of blood. Good clerics can often dispel the undead - skeletons, zombies and their ilk... As they advance in experience levels they gain the use of additional spells. Spells for evil clerics differ slightly from those of good clerics... Clerics have the ability to turn away the "undead," and higher level clerics can dispel them. If the cleric turns the undead away they retreat before him, will not touch him and flee from his immediate vicinity if they can. When a higher level cleric dispels an undead monster it disappears and is gone forever. - Holmes, pgs. 6 & 12

Whenever a cleric character tries to Turn undead monsters, the player will roll 2d6 and compare the total to the Turn Undead chart... If the attempt at Turning the undead is successful, the player will then ask you how many monsters are affected. - Mentzer DMR, pg. 21

Note in Cleric Experience Table that I allow 1st level clerics one 1st level spell a day.

HOLMENTZER HALFLINGS

HOLMENTZER HALFLINGS

Halflings are short, 3 feet high, little folk with several special abilities. Out-of-doors they are difficult to see, having the ability to vanish into woods or undergrowth. They are like dwarves in their resistance to magic.* Halflings are extremely accurate with missiles and fire any missile at +1. They can use all the weapons and armor of a fighting man as long as it is "cut down" to their size. - Holmes, pg. 7

Further specifics from Mentzer DMR, pg. 16:

A halfling character has special skills at hiding. This is because of the halfling's small size and ability to "freeze," or hold very still, not moving, for short periods of time. A halfling is also harder to hit when attacked by any creature larger than man-sized... [gaining] a bonus to their Armor Class.

* Holmentzer uses the Saving Throw Chart from inside the back cover of Mentzer Basic DMR, a chart by way of Cook Expert.

HALFLINGS IN FURTHERMOOR

Long ago, the largest community of halflings in Furthermoor was among the hills of Hoppling Downs, in NW Furthermoor, until the Shadow War took place nearby, in the zone now known as the Enchanted Waste. Today, the largest communities are the Halfling Ghetto within Furthermoor City & the hilly region of Duck Hill. Halflings are known for their excellence in the leisure arts, namely the brewing of beer & the growing of potent leaf.

HOLMENTZER DWARVES

HOLMENTZER DWARVES

Dwarves are about four feet tall, stocky of build and weigh 150 pounds, shoulders very broad, their skin a ruddy tan, brown or gray. They wear long beards. They are sturdy fighters and are especially resistant to magic as shown by their better saving throws against magical attack*. They have infravision and can see 60 feet in the dark. Underground, they can detect slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction about one-third of the time. Dwarves can all speak the languages of gnomes, kobolds and goblins. - Holmes, pg. 6

The traps a dwarf can find are those involving large dungeon features, such as a falling ceiling, floor pit, and so forth. The traps a dwarf may discover does not refer to all traps. For example, a dwarf would have no chance at detecting a small dart trap on a chest; this could be detectable only by a thief.^ - Mentzer DMR, pg. 15

* The resistance to magic a dwarf enjoys is most beneficial using the saving throw table from the back of Mentzer DMR, i.e. Holmentzer. The Mentzer chart comes from Cook Expert.

^If a dwarf is a thief, these abilities will be in addition to their thief abilities.

DWARVES IN FURTHERMOOR

The origin of the dwarf in Wild Earth, published in Hooded Periscope #2, is mostly concerned w/ the realm of Kush, which is west of Furthermoor. In Furthermoor, dwarves come from various places, but mainly the SW, the magnificent, loud city of Moloch, or the nearby Mines of Turnip Skull. Though the dwarves have other places, unknown to non-dwarves, all over & through the mountains.

HOLMENTZER ELVES

[so I plan to sweep through races for Holmentzer - class & race generally comes from Holmes Blue Book, i.e. Holmentzer Player's Handbook; however, there are a few key spots where Mentzer DMR adds a nuance to make it something singular - this race is a good example]

HOLMENTZER ELVES

Elves are five or more feet in height, slim of build, weigh about 120 pounds and have fair to tan skin. They can use all the weapons and armor of the fighting man*, including all magical weapons, and can also cast spells like a magic-user. They can detect secret hidden doors about one-third of the time. They have infravision; like dwarves, they can see 60 feet in the dark. They are not paralyzed by the touch of ghouls. Elves can speak the languages of orcs, hobgoblins and gnolls as well as Elvish and the Common speech they share with men, dwarves, and halflings. Thus, they have the advantages of both fighting men and magic-users as well as certain special capabilities of their own*.

Elves progress in level as both fighting men and magic-users*, but since each game nets them experience in both categories equally, they progress more slowly than other characters. - Holmes, pgs. 6-7.

*This is true, unless a player decides their elf is a magic-user only, or in place of fighting man, choose a different class, like thief, which has its own limitations, e.g. cannot wear plate armor, etc.

If an elf player wishes their elf to be a magic-user only, they follow THESE RULES for determining spells in their 1st level spell book, referring to the FIRST LEVEL ELF SPELL LIST. Also, they will progress solely on the experience path of a magic-user.

Otherwise, all other elves, which are multi-classed, i.e. Fighter/Magic-user, Thief/magic-user, etc. will follow the Spell Book rules from Mentzer Dungeon Masters Rulebook. The reason for this, is that while all elves grow up learning magic to some degree, those that have focused on other talents, don't have the same magic experience as those dedicating everything to magic. The Mentzer rules are as follows:

When a player starts as a... elf character, the player will ask you what spells the character has in the spell book. The magic-user's teacher is a higher level NPC magic-user, and the spells come from the teacher... The first spell given should always be Read Magic. This allows the character to read scrolls found, and would be a basic part of the character's training... You may give any "second spell" to a beginning elf character. The elf's many talents keep that character class balanced with the others, whatever spells are known. The player of an elf can feel useful in many ways; the spell is an additional bonus, not the character's only specialty. - Mentzer Basic DMR, pg. 18.

If a multi-classed elf has a high enough INT, they have more than two spells in their book at the beginning of a game, e.g. INT of 13-15 = 3 spells, 16-17 = 4 spells, 18 = 5 spells. Also, these spells are selected by the DM, and may not always be from the elf list.

ELVES IN FURTHERMOOR

Like Holmes mentions in his monster section, in Furthermoor, there are both high elves & wood elves. As of now, all elf PCs are considered high elves. For high elves as monsters, I'm using Mentzer's monster description, & for wood elves, Holmes. In addition, wood elves of Furthermoor are green. Currently thinking about this, but it's gotta be good.

HOLMENTZER WEAPON DAMAGE & ATTACKS

[important rule bits are the table image & the paragraph below it]

OD&D damage was 1d6, no matter what, until Greyhawk introduced variable weapon damage. Holmes uses the classic 1d6 damage die, but refers players to AD&D if they want something more complex:

He then makes another die roll, with one 6-sided die, to see how many points of damage were done by the hit. (The more complex system used for advanced play allows for varying amounts of damage by different weapons and by various sorts of monsters)... The number of damage points scored by a monster's hit is variable and is given in the monster section. In general, humanoid creatures and first level monsters do one six-sided die's worth of damage per "hit" - whether the hit is a sword blow, a bite, a horn gore, a clawing or whatever. - Holmes, pg. 18 & 19.

Mentzer DMR on the other hand, mentions nothing of damage in regard to player characters, though Mentzer's Player's Manual does introduce a simplified variable weapon damage chart, via Moldvay:

Whenever you hit a monster in your adventures so far, your character's weapon inflicted 1-6 (1d6) points of damage. But if we consider the battle realistically, a dagger should do less damage than a sword (for example). - Mentzer Basic Player's Manual, pg. 60.

In Holmes, variable weapon damage is mentioned as advanced, whereas Mentzer presents variable weapon damage as being more realistic. I side w/ Holmes, having trouble w/ Mentzer's realistic bit, as I don't see why, a dagger, if a solid hit, in a vital place, couldn't do just as much damage as any other weapon. Also, given that it's mainly the Mentzer DM Rulebook I'm concerned w/ re: Holmentzer, I'm gonna follow Holmes' lead for more advanced weapon damage rules & use AD&D 1e Players Handbook, which rocks a modified & expanded version of the table from Greyhawk.

Damage By Weapon Type (disregard weight column) - click me

In addition to the above image, I will be using this bit from Holmes, pg. 20, in regard to number of attacks in a round, etc.:

Light weapons such as a dagger allow two blows per round. The heavy two-handed sword, battle axe, halberd, flail, morning star, and most pole arm can be used only once every other round. The light crossbow takes time to cock and load, so it likewise can be fired only once every other round. The heavy crossbow takes twice as long to load and fire.

HOLMENTZER REVISITED

Had a vision, got crafty, & here's the result: the new Holmentzer cover.

I dig the way the left arm of the Elmore dragon fits under the wing of the Sutherland dragon (the leg is off, but I chose to leave it, for now). Also, trying to minimize use of toner, I ended up adjoining two failed attempts, giving off a bit of a doubling, motion effect on Elmore's fighter: the sword, shoulder, shield, leg, boot...

Holmentzer Basic

Though I havent had time to post of many mechanical decisions made while fusing these two editions, I did post thorough examinations of all of the monsters, which can be found HERE.

I plan to post about Wandering Monsters soon.

HOLMENTZER MONSTERS: T - Z

T - Thoul, Giant Tick, Troglodyte, Troll

U - Unicorn

V - Vampire

W - Wight, Wolf, Wraith

Y - Yellow Mold

Z - Zombie

Thoul is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Giant Tick is Holmes.

Troglodyte is in H & M. Holmes' entry remains intact, except for how Mentzer, which is via Moldvay, deals w/ the trogs' stench. Holmes says, "[those] nauseated... lose 1 point of strength (not hit points) each round for 1-6 rounds; the effect is cumulative. Loss of strength lasts 10 melee rounds after it has taken final effect". Mentzer says, "Nauseated characters have a -2 penalty on their Hit Rolls while in hand-to-hand combat with the troglodytes". Going w/ Mentzer.

Troll is Holmes.

Unicorn is Holmes.

 

Vampire Holmes.

Wight is in H & M. Holmes' entry has been passed down here, w/ just a few small diffs. First, Mentzer, via Moldvay, adds that one becoming a wight will do so in "1-4 days". Secondly, while Mentzer simply says wights "can only be hit by silvered or magical weapons," Holmes agrees, but gives magic arrows a special bonus against wights, doing "double damage". Also of note is that Holmes mentions "barrow wights (as per Tolkien)".

Wolf is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Wraith is Holmes.

Yellow Mold is in H & M. Basically same, biggest diff is Holmes' Yellow Mold potentially releases a cloud of spores on "rough contact" & causes nearby PCs to Save vs. Poison "or be killed", while Mentzer's YM, which is via Moldvay, "if it is touched, even by a torch," may send up spores which cause PCs to Save vs. Death Ray, or "choke to death within 6 rounds".

Zombie is in H & M. Interestingly, while Holmes' & Moldvay's Zombies are quicker than Mentzer's (120' vs. 90'), Holmes closes his entry w/, "by nature they are slow, getting only one attack every other melee round". Mentzer does not have this bit about attacking every other round, but instead, along w/ Zombies being slower in general, has them always lose initiative in battle (via Moldvay). Finally, like Skeletons, Holmes' Zombies are neutral & are more the puppets of "some evil magic-user or evil cleric", whereas Mentzer's Zombies are chaotic. Going w/ Holmes.

A - D
E - K
L - O
P - S

HOLMENTZER MONSTERS: P - S

P - Pegasi, Pixie, Purple Worm

R - Giant Rat, Robber Fly, Rust Monster

S - Shadow, Giant Shrew, Shrieker, Skeleton, Snake, Spectre, Giant Spider, Sprite, Stirge

Pegasi is Holmes.

Pixie is in H & M. Holmes' entry remains intact, except for a touch of nixed description: "They use short bows, small spears, and daggers. Their royalty are powerful magic-users. All are friendly with elves and fairies." The major diff between editions comes to mechanics surrounding pixies' invisiblity powers, & how to deal w/ attacking them when-so. While Holmes simply says, "defenders note minor shadows and air distortions," Mentzer, taking Moldvay's lead, tacks a -4 penalty on Hit Rolls to reflect this (Moldvay was -2, btw). Will use Mentzer for now.

Purple Worm is Holmes.

Giant Rat is in H & M, though Mentzer, via Moldvay, has stats for Normal Rats as well. Statistically, Holmes' Giant Rat survives in Mentzer, though in description, as well as in dealing w/ poison, there are a few differences. First off, Holmes reveals the literary influence of the Giant Rat ("also known as Sumatran rats"), referencing the Sherlock Holmes story, "The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire", in which a Giant Rat from Sumatra is mentioned. Secondly, in regard to poison, Holmes specifies that the rat's disease is a "bacterial infestation" having a duration of 60 days, & while it can be fatal (25% chance like Mentzer), if not, will take an additional "10 weeks to recover". So in Holmes, if a PC doesnt die from rat disease, they will be out of play for roughly 4 1/2 months game time. Mentzer on the other hand, simply states that if the disease is not fatal, the victim will "be sick in bed for 1 month, unable to adventure." In other words, Holmes' disease is much more taxing to a PC's system. I'm gonna go w/ Holmes.

Robber Fly is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Rust Monster is in H & M. While statistically Holmes' Rust Monster survives into Mentzer, the big diffs are when/how exactly a Rust Monster rusts a weapon and/or magical weapons. Holmes' Rust Monster proves to be "the bane of anyone wearing metal." For any hit by or against Holmes' RM will cause either metal armor, or weapon, to "rust instantaneously", "even magic weapons". But whereas Holmes' RM is an "inoffensive looking little creature", Mentzer's, via Moldvay, has "a body like a giant armadillo with a long tail, and 2 long front 'feelers' (antannae)." For Mentzer, these "feelers" are what cause "any non-magical armor or weapon hit to immediately crumble to rust", so it isnt the RM's body in general that causes rustage. Therefore a successfully hit on the RM in Mentzer means a weapon is not affected, unlike both Holmes & Moldvay. Lastly, in Mentzer, like Moldvay, magical weapons have a 10%-for-every-"plus"-chance to not be affected in above circumstances. When they are affected, they lose one plus @ a time, until normal, & finally turn to rust, if it comes to that. As mentioned above, Holmes of course doesnt find favor for magical weapons vs. the RM. I think I'm gonna go w/ Holmes, but not certain.

Shadow is in H & M. Holmes' entry remains intact here, w/ the addition, that in Mentzer, Shadows are given the chance of surprising on 1-5 w/ 1d6. That said, an editing bit to note, is that while Mentzer is almost word-for-word Moldvay, he chooses to revert to Holmes' "Non-corporeal... intelligent creatures" vs. Moldvay's "in-corporeal... intelligent creatures".

Giant Shrew is Mentzer, via Moldvay. "No. Appearing" in Mentzer is flip-flopped: misprint.

Shrieker is in H & M. First off, while Holmes' Shrieker is a "form of mindless fungus which is ambulatory", Mentzer's Shriekers, via Moldvay, "look like giant mushrooms". While Holmes' moves a foot more per turn (10 feet/turn vs. 9 feet turn), the biggest diff here is that Holmes' reacts to light within 30' & movement within 10', whereas Mentzer's reacts to light within 60' & movement within 30'. Also, while Holmes says if the Shrieker shrieks there's a "50% chance of attracting wandering monsters each round thereafter", Mentzer limits this possibility to rounds that the shrieker is actually shrieking. Since Holmes uses the word round, I think it safe to assume he means rolling for wandering monsters each round after a shriek, until the encounter is over & the game reverts to a turn basis. Therefore, while Holmes' Shrieker has limited range, it can potentially alert a lot of monsters; on the other hand, Mentzer's shroom detects passing parties more easily, but only alerts monsters while it's shrieking. Going w/ Holmes.

Skeleton is in H & M. Holmes writes, "Animated skeletons act only under instructions of their motivator, an evil magic-user or cleric." This is important to note, b/c some of this verbage survives to Mentzer ("often used as guards by the high level magic-user or cleric who animated them"), & though on surface a slight diff, it's telling: Holmes' Skeleton is neutral, whereas Mentzer's is chaotic, i.e. Holmes' Skeleton is more a puppet than Mentzer's. In addition, Mentzer's Skeleton, via Moldvay, is sturdier than Holmes' (1 HD vs. 1/2 HD) & harder to hit (AC 7 vs. AC 8). Lastly, unlike Mentzer, Holmes informs the fledgling DM that skeletons "usually make no noise since they do not move unless they are attacking." Gonna use Holmes for now...

Snake is Mentzer, via Moldvay. However, one could potentially construct an entry for Holmes, as Holmes does mention snakes in a number of places, w/ stats: asps within his Medusa entry do 1-6 damage/bite & a "giant snake" in the sample dungeon is AC 6, HD 2, 100 feet/turn movement. These stats come closest to Mentzer's Pit Viper, but given the variety here, no point in analyzing further (see Giant Spider below). Lastly, while Mentzer relays Moldvay here, he adds Giant Racer to the entry.

Spectre is Holmes.

Giant Spider is in H & M, though the entries are quite divergent. First off, Holmes' "Spider" entry is for Large, Huge & Giant Spiders, while Mentzer's "Giant Spider" entry, which is via Moldvay, is for Crab Spider, Black Widow & Tarantella. B/c of this spectrum, it is hard to do comparison as I have been, though what I can say, is that Holmes' Giant Spider, while a bit slower than any of Mentzer's, is harder to hit/kill, having 4 + 4 HD (Mentzer's Tarantella is 4 HD) & an AC of 4 (Mentzer's Tarantella is AC 5). Interestingly, in the sample dungeon section of Holmes, there is a "giant spider", though its AC is "3 (plate mail)". Apparently this stat diff from the monster section has to do w/ changes made over the course of reprints (1st print of Holmes didnt have Spiders in the monster section @ all, only an "enormous spider" in the J room of the sample dungeon - see Zenopus Archives post). That said, I find no prob using all spider options for Holmentzer, including Enormous Spider.

Sprite is Mentzer, w/ misprint action: no AC is listed (stats are erroneously shifted up to where HD is where AC should be). That said, as Moldvay's AC for a Sprite is 5, & Mentzer is otherwise relayed Moldvay, it's safe to insert here.

Stirge is in H & M. While Mentzer, via Moldvay, has added land movement stats & changed the Treasure Type, Holmes' Stirge remains, though slightly weakened in attack/damage. Holmes' Stirge "attacks at +2 on all die rolls", while Mentzer's only gets +2 "on its first Hit Roll against any one opponent due to its speedy diving attack". Also, Holmes' Stirge, after initially latching to its victim & sucking blood for 1-3 damage, does 1-4 damage each round thereafter, whereas Mentzer's Stirge does 1-3 damage no matter. Lastly, it's interesting to note changes in the descriptive text through editions: Holmes says, "Large bird-like creatures with long proboscises, rather like feathered ant-eaters"; Moldvay says, "birdlike creature with a long nose, looking rather like a very small feathered anteater"; Mentzer says, "birdlike creature with a long nose". Going w/ Holmes' proboscises.

A - D
E - K
L - O
T - Z

HOLMENTZER MONSTERS: L - O

L - Living Statue, Giant Lizard, Lizard Man, Giant Locust, Lycanthrope

M - Manticore, Medusa, Minotaur, Mule, Mummy

N - Neanderthal, Normal Human, NPC Party

O - Ochre Jelly, Ogre, Orc, Owl Bear

 

Living Statue is Mentzer, via Moldvay. As Moldvay hit shelves in '81, there can be little doubt Basic D&D (esp. Moldvay's Crystal & Rock entries here & going back to Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) inspired the creation of the '83 Marvel comic, The Saga of Crystar, Crystal Warrior.

Giant Lizard is Mentzer, via Moldvay, w/ only a few changes to gliding speed for a Draco & "Save As" for a Tuatara.

Lizard Man is in H & M. Holmes' entry remains intact through editions, including info how victims will be taken to the LM lair to be the "main course" of a feast. The only difference is in damage verbage, & also, Mentzer, via Moldvay, adds that "Lizard men are often found in swamps, rivers, and along seacoasts as well as in dungeons".

Giant Locust is Mentzer.

Lycanthrope is in H & M. The main differences between the two, stat-wise, is that Mentzer's lycanthropes (via Moldvay), other than wererats, are each 30 feet/turn faster than Holmes'. The other main shift, other than differences in damage, is regarding alignment. Where Holmes has wereboars & werebears sometimes Chaotic Good, Mentzer's are Neutral only, though Mentzer does mention in the werebear section, "it might be friendly, however, if peacefully approached". Lastly, Holmes says, "All were-creatures are repelled by wolfsbane," i.e. a successful hit w/ wolfsbane repels. In Mentzer however, "If a lycanthrope is hit by wolfsbane, it must make a Saving Throw vs. Poison or run away in fear."  I'll probably roll w/ Holmes' lycanthropes for now.

Manticore is Holmes.

Medusa is in H & M. Though Holmes' entry remains intact statistically, the descriptions diverge a bit. While Holmes says, "This monster is usually female," Mentzer, via Moldvay, says that a "medusa looks like a human female". Holmes also specifies that the snakes from the medusa's heads are "asps". The biggest divergence between H & M, however, has to do w/ medusa's gaze, as well as additional mechanics regarding battle w/ medusa + snakes in Mentzer. Holmes simply says that medusa's gaze "turns creatures to stone"; Mentzer on the other hand, allows the victim a Saving Throw vs. Turn to Stone, & also, if they make the saving throw, diverging from Moldvay, seems to be saying the medusa will automatically petrify itself: "the sight of the medusa will turn a creature to stone unless the victim makes a Saving Throw vs. Turn to Stone or she will petrify herself!" Lastly, Mentzer adds, "Medusae occasionally use weapons." For Holmentzer, going w/ Holmes.

Minotaur is in H & M. Holmes' entry, w/ a few damage stat changes, remains intact here, though his "bull-headed man" gamer joke has been nixed. Holmes' Minotaur gets 3 attacks (2 horns + 1 bite), whereas Mentzer's Minotaur, via Moldvay, can either gore & bite (2 attacks), or use a weapon (1 attack). In addition, when using a weapon, Mentzer's Minotaur gets +2 to damage. For Holmentzer, will use Mentzer.

Mule is in H & M, though Holmes' mule is in the Horse entry & quite brief: "Mules can often be taken into dungeons and they can carry 3,500 gold pieces. Horses can usually carry more, but lack the ability and calm necessary for dungeon expeditions." Interestingly, though Mentzer gives mules their own stats, which are straight from Moldvay (except for general No. Appearing), the big difference between Mentzer's Mule & Moldvay's is in regard to the same issue: how much a mule can carry.  Moldvay says "2000 coins (or 4000 coins at most, with its move reduced to 60' turn)", whereas Mentzer ups this to "3000 coins (or 6000 coins...)" Mentzer also adds "if encountered in a dungeon, the mules may belong to an NPC party nearby." Mentzer for now...

Mummy is Holmes.

Neanderthal is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Normal Human is in H & M. Holmes' "Normal Man" doesnt have an entry in the monster section, but is listed in his Combat & Saving Throw tables. Also, within details of his Sample Dungeon, Holmes stats "normal men" as having between 1-6 hit points. Mentzer is via Moldvay, w/ one sizable change: Moldvay's Normal Humans have 1/2 HD (1-4 hp), e.g. "an adult blacksmith would have 4 hp", whereas Mentzer's have 1 HD: "a blacksmith could have 8 hp". I'm thinking that Holmes' Normal Men may be a good median for Holmentzer, though gonna think on it. Thanks to Zenopus Archives for regulating regarding Holmes here.

NPC Party is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Ochre Jelly is in H & M. Holmes' entry remains through editions, w/ specifics regarding smaller jellies tacked on by way of Moldvay. "It is, of course, ochre colored," says Holmes.

Ogre is in H & M, & while Holmes' Ogre pretty much survives, Mentzer's, via Moldvay, has AC 5, vs. Holmes' AC 6. When noticing the additions to the description, one could probably explain this diff due to Mentzer's having ogres "wear animal skins". Other than some slight diffs in Damage & Treasure Type, the only other bit is Mentzer specifying a hatred between Ogres & Neanderthals, like Goblins & Dwarves. Will use Mentzer.

Orc is in H & M. Mentzer's orc, which is via Moldvay, is faster than Holmes' which looks to trickle into Armor Class as well: Mentzer's Orc has AC 6, moves 120 feet/turn vs. Holmes' Orc AC 7, moves 90 feet/turn. Other than that, the main diff, as usual, is that Mentzer elabs w/ mechanical info regarding groups, tacking on a number of paragraphs. An interesting progression to note here is that while Holmes says, "Members of different orc tribes cooperate poorly and attack members of another tribe on sight unless under a strong commander," and Moldvay says, "members of different tribes are not usually friendly with each other, and may start fighting unless their leaders are present," Mentzer chooses to edit this bit out of his description. Though "different tribes" are mentioned, the antagonism between them is not. Since using Mentzer for Ogre, gonna simplify for Orc, & go Holmes.

Owl Bear is in H & M. Holmes shines through here w/ just one duo of beef w/ Mentzer, which is via Moldvay. Attacks & Damage. Holmes gives the owl bear 3 attacks: beak, claw & bear-hug, each doing 1-8 damage; Mentzer gives 2 claws & 1 bite, each for 1-8 damage, however, if both claws hit the same victim, the owl bear will automatically hug for an additional 2d8 damage. For Holmentzer, going w/ Mentzer for now.

A - D
E - K
P - S
T - Z 

HOLMENTZER MONSTERS: E - K

E - Elf

F - Giant Ferret

G - Gargoyle, Gelatinous Cube, Ghoul, Giant, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, Gray Ooze, Green Slime, Griffon

H - Halfling, Harpy, Hell Hound, Hippogriff, Hobgoblin, Horse, Human, Hydra

K - Kobold

 

Elf is in H & M. The main stat diff between the two is Hit Dice. Holmes Elves are 1 + 1 HD, whereas Mentzer Elves are 1 HD. Moldvay, like Holmes, has 1 + 1, so this is a Mentzer change. As for alignment, we see Holmes' "chaotic good (some neutral)" translated into "neutral" only. Holmes' description is super brief, relying on the character section of his manual to fill in the gaps. That said, he does mention that elves are generally "of two sorts, wood elves and high elves". Mentzer on the other hand, which is via Moldvay, has no mention of these different sorts of elves. Likewise, in Mentzer, there only need be 15 elves in a group to have a leader, vs. 50ish in Holmes. I have posted about elves before, & probably need to revisit the topic in more depth regarding Holmentzer, but for now, I'm thinking I'll use Mentzer for high elves (less HP, less elves per leader) & Holmes for wood elves (more HP, more elves per leader).

Giant Ferret is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Gargoyle is in H & M. Holmes' Gargoyle remains fairly intact through the editions, the only real diff being that Mentzer, via Moldvay, varies a Gargoyle's claw & bite damage (1-3/1-6, respectively), whereas Holmes has 1d4 damage down the line. "As depicted in medieval architecture, gargoyles are reptilian, horned, taloned, fanged, winged beasts of hideous aspect. They will attack nearly anything that approaches them and are at least semi-intelligent and cunning," says Holmes; "As pictured in medieval architecture, they are horned, clawed, fanged, winged, hideous-looking beasts... very cunning and at least semi-intelligent. They will attack nearly anything that approaches them," says Mentzer. Mentzer, via Moldvay, adds that Gargolyes cannot be affected by sleep or charm spells & also suggests that a DM not use them unless a party is equipped w/ a magical weapon.

Gelatinous Cube is in H & M. Again we have a Holmes monster remaining statistically & descriptively intact @ the core: "They move through rooms and corridors... sweeping them clean of all living and dead material. In the process they may pick up indigestable items like gold and gems and carry them within their body," says Holmes; "moves through the rooms and corridors of a dungeon, sweeping the halls clean of all living and dead material. In the process, it may pick up items it cannot dissolve (such as weapons, coins, and gems)," says Mentzer. Though H & M, via Moldvay, both discuss Saving vs. Paralysis when one is hit by a GC, it is interesting to pay close attention to Dr. Holmes' descriptor here: "Flesh that comes into contact with the cube is anesthetized unless a saving throw against paralysis is made." While the later editions translate this to mean that GCs cause paralysis, is that what Holmes is truly saying? Mentzer, via Moldvay, also adds that GCs surprise on 1-4 on 1d6 b/c they are "hard to see". Lastly, Mentzer diverges from Moldvay in allowing the chance of encountering 1d4 GCs in a lair, vs. one.

Ghoul is in H & M, & the Mentzer version is again an elab on Holmes' core monster stats/description. The only real difference between editions is in regard to who/what a ghoul can paralyze: Mentzer, via Moldvay, speaks in size ("any creature of ogre-size or smaller"), vs. type in Holmes ("any human/humanoid figure"). Lastly, Mentzer adds that ghouls are immune to sleep and charm spells.

Giant is Holmes.

Gnoll is in H & M. Holmes' entry remains intact, w/ only minimal changes to Damage & Treasure Type. One interesting thing to note, is that Holmes says gnolls are like "hyena-men". Mentzer carries on this idea, but also adds the bit that "Gnolls are rumored to be the result of a magical combination of a gnome and a troll by an evil magic-user." It could be argued, that these are actually two different ways to look @ the gnoll monster from a physical standpoint, though in Mentzer, like Moldvay, they are fused together.

Gnome is in H & M, & while Mentzer is via Moldvay, what you have is Holmes' brief entry @ the core, hacked & littered about a longer description w/ group info, lair, etc.

Goblin is in H & M. The major diff is that Mentzer's Goblin is faster than Holmes' (90 feet turn vs. 60 feet turn). This change is purely Mentzer, as Moldvay reflects Holmes. Other than diff Treasure Types, what you have here is another Holmes @ core entry, w/ one small divergence via Moldvay, pertaining to the number of bodyguards a goblin king has @ their service.

Gray Ooze is in H & M. Holmes' stats remain intact in Mentzer, & some choice bits of his description survive as well (e.g. "this seeping horror"). But while Holmes simply tells us an ooze "can corrode metal in one turn", Mentzer, via Moldvay, goes further by saying the ooze "secretes an acid... will dissolve and destroy normal armor or weapons in only 1 round, and magic items in one turn". Lastly, like the Gelatinous Cube entry, Mentzer diverges from Moldvay to suggest numerous oozes @ once, plus adds that an ooze lair may contain "a special treasure made of stone (DM's choice)".

Green Slime is in H & M. Major diff is that Mentzer's Green Slime, via Moldvay, can move. Holmes' GS is "non-mobile" though it sometimes "drops from high places". Other than that, the description in Mentzer is basically Holmes w/ mechanical info on burning off the slime, etc. Something worth noting, is that while Holmes mentions fire affecting a GS, once it hits flesh, it "must be excised or treated" w/ magic. The later editions cut any mention of excising & focus on burning off the slime. Lastly, Mentzer diverges in a number of ways from Moldvay statistically: lowers Morale from 12 to 7, gives Treasure Types (Holmes & Moldvay have "nil"), & Mentzer's GS is Lawful, instead of Neutral. Holmes' Green Slime has no alignment. Holmes GS for Holmentzer.

Griffon is Holmes.

Halfling is Mentzer, via Moldvay, w/ only a small diff in Treasure Types.

Harpy is in H & M. Mentzer, via Moldvay, is almost identical to Holmes, stat-wise, except Holmes has 1d4 damage for a Harpy's weapon attack vs. 1d6 in Mentz. As for the description, one subtle diff presents itself when combing the verbage of each. Holmes: "By their singing they lure men to them, their touch then charms them and they are killed and devoured. Any creature hearing the harpy song must make its saving throw against spells or be drawn irresistibly to his doom!" Notice that while a saving throw determines whether a harpy's song will lure an adventurer or not, Holmes says it is the harpy's touch that actually charms the victim. Mentzer: "By their singing, harpies lure creatures to them to be killed and devoured. Any creature hearing the harpies' songs must make a Saving Throw vs. Spells or be Charmed." Mentzer says that failing the song throw not only leads the victim to the harpies, but also, b/c of this, the victim is charmed. While I would like to brood on the implications of this difference here, I'm gonna save it for a later post. For now, just note the nuances. Lastly, Mentzer increases Harpy's "Save As" to Fight: 6 from Moldvay's Fighter: 3. Mentzer does this vs. F: 3 Harpy's getting +2 on all Saving Throws. For Holmentzer, I'm going w/ Mentzer's Harpy for now.

Hell Hound is Holmes.

Hippogriff is Holmes.

Hobgoblin is in H & M. Another Holmes @ core entry, Mentzer, via Moldvay, elabs on specifics regarding a hobgoblin king & his cronies. That said, Mentzer's hobgoblin king is quite powerful compared to Holmes'. Not only does Mentzer's fight as a 5 HD monster (Holmes says as ogre, which is 4 + 1), but also, he gets +2 damage. For Holmentzer, may as well use Mentzer.

Horse is Holmes. The entry includes light horses, medium horses, heavy war horses, draft horses, and mules.

Human is Mentzer. Mentzer deals w/ "occasional random encounters with 1-3 humans". More on this singular entry down the road.

Hydra is Holmes.

Kobold is in H & M. Holmes' Kobolds are "evil dwarf-like creatures" that behave like goblins, "but are less powerful". They are nimble, moving @ 120 feet/turn, & as well, "are highly resistant to magic" gaining +3 on all saving throws, except for dragon breath. Mentzer's kobolds, which are straight from Moldvay, w/ one change regarding movement (Mentzer's 90' sits between Holmes' 120' & Moldvay's 60'), are "small, dog-like men... scaly, rust-brown skin & no hair." This "dog-like men" description seems to have originated w/ Moldvay, though I'm going to guess it has something to do w/ that kobold drawing in the AD&D Monster Manual? That said, Mentzer's kobolds have nothing to do w/ magical resistance, & though the chieftain is equal w/ Holmes', the bodyguards are weaker. For Holmentzer, I'm going w/ Holmes on this one.

A - D
L - O
P - S 
T - Z

HOLMENTZER MONSTERS: A - D

A - Giant Ant, White Ape

B - Rock Baboon, Bandit, Basilisk, Bat, Bear, Giant Bee, Giant Beetle, Berserker, Black Pudding, Blink Dogs, Boar, Bugbear

C - Carrion Crawler, Great Cat, Giant Centipede, Chimera, Cockatrice

D - Displacer Beast, Djinni, Doppleganger, Dragon, Dwarf

[So I said I wasnt going to list all of the Holmentzer monsters. I lied.]

Giant Ant is listed in both Holmes & Mentzer. Mentzer's Giant Ant is quite hefty, having 4 HD vs. Holmes' 2 HD. Also, Mentzer's Giant Ant does 2d6 damage, vs. Holmes' 1d6. Moldvay becomes indispensible comparing these two as Mentzer's Giant Ant is in fact Moldvay's "Driver Ant". Influenced by Herodotus' The Histories, the Driver Ant is a formidable, gold-hungry miner: "There are legends of giant ants mining gold, and there is a 30% chance that a lair will contain 1-10 thousand gp worth of nuggets," says Mentzer. As for Holmentzer, I think the best way to reconcile these two, is to use the Mentzer Giant Ant for desert, dungeons, caves, mountainous, riverbed, mineral deposit areas, etc., whereas the Holmes Giant Ant would be the encounter in forests, nearby towns, etc.

White Ape is a Mentzer only monster, that, to my knowledge, 1st appeared in D&D w/ Moldvay. The literary basis for the White Ape is Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars & subsequent Barsoom novels. This entry in Mentzer is a good example of Mentzer slightly altering a Moldvay entry: "They are nocturnal, sleeping in the day and looking for fruits and vegetables at night," says Moldvay; "They are nocturnal herbivores, looking for fruits and vegetables at night," says Mentzer. I've seen entries where the only difference between Moldvay & Mentzer is Mentzer's addition of a comma.

Rock Baboon is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Bandit is in H & M, and the entries are basically the same, the main difference being that Mentzer has Bandit movement as 90' (30'), whereas Holmes is 120 feet/turn (i.e. 120' (40')). As Moldvay has 120' (40'), my bet is that Mentzer is a misprint.

Basilisk is Holmes.

Bat is Mentzer, via Moldvay. Note that the Mentzer stats for Giant & Normal are actually switched, i.e. another Mentzer misprint.

Bear is Mentzer, via Moldvay, though Mentzer's Grizzly is fiercer.

Giant Bee is Mentzer, via Moldvay's "Killer Bee".

Giant Beetle is in H & M, though in Holmes the entry is solely for the Fire Beetle.

Berserker is in H & M. The entries are basically the same, except for varying Treasure Types.

Black Pudding is Holmes.

Blink Dogs Holmes.

Boar is Mentzer, via Moldvay, though Mentzer's Boar is slower.

Bugbear is in H & M. These entries are basically the same, the main diff being where Holmes has 2-8 damage, Mentzer has "By weapon + 1". Also, in Mentzer, unlike Holmes or Moldvay, the Bugbear gets a +1 "to hit" when using a weapon. I'll probably stick w/ Mentzer for now, but will come back to this later when reconciling damage in general for Holmentzer. Lastly, this entry is a good example of how a Holmes description has remained, though slightly altered, through editions: "These creatures are great hairy goblin giants. Despite their size and shambling gait they move very quietly and attack without warning whenever they can," says Holmes; "Bugbears are giant hairy goblins. Despite their size and awkward walk, they move very quietly and attack without warning whenever they can," says Mentzer.

Carrion Crawler is in H & M, & the entries are basically identical, cept Holmes is super brief in his description (less is more?); & while we again witness Holmes' description passing down through editions for a classic D&D monster, Mentzer adds, like Moldvay before him, that "once paralyzed, a victim will be eaten (unless the carrion crawler is being attacked)." Mentzer also adds that "carrion crawlers are not normally found outside of dungeons."

Great Cat is Mentzer, via Moldvay.

Giant Centipede is in H & M. Mentzer's Giant Centipede, which is via Moldvay, is much slower than Holmes': 60 feet/turn vs. 150 feet/turn. Also, Mentzer's has slightly more HP in that it's 1/2 HD (1-4 HP), vs. Holmes' 1/4 HD, or 1-2 HP. Lastly, while Holmes deals w/ a Giant Centipede's "weaker" poison by granting a bite victim +4 to their Saving Throw, Mentzer works it by nixing the saving throw bonus, & if the bite victim fails the saving throw, they don't die, but grow ill for 10 days & move at 1/2 speed. While I prefer Holmes' faster Giant Centipede, I do like the poison mechanics in Mentzer.

Chimera is Holmes.

Cockatrice is Holmes.

Displacer Beast Holmes.

Djinni H...

Doppleganger is in H & M. Again, a Holmes entry basically survives intact here, w/ Mentzer only disagreeing w/ what Moldvay added in regard to Save As & Morale. Lastly, Mentzer wants you to know that "when killed, a doppleganger turns back into its original form".

Dragon is in H & M, obviously. For starters, Holmes lists four types of dragon: White, Black, Red & Brass; & while Mentzer doesnt have Brass, he has White, Black & Red, plus Green, Blue & Gold. As this is the largest monster entry in either book, let's focus on the key differences: Mentzer (which is via Moldvay) has Holmes' dragons @ the heart, then builds on them, making them more complex, & in some cases, more powerful. For instance, while all Holmes dragons have an AC of 2, a Mentzer Red Dragon has an AC of -1. In the same vein, Holmes dragons do the same amount of damage, whereas Mentzer's all have diff. damage stats. That said, the breath weapon stats are almost identical between editions. Outside of those major stat differences, there are the big differences: Holmes' way of dealing w/ a dragon's age, which also has to do w/ HD & damage for its breath weapon, is by having a handy 1d8 chart to roll on. Mentzer on the other hand, though mentioning how age can effect a dragon's stats, does not have this chart, & doesnt suggest a random way of determining a dragon's age. That said, Mentzer does have another chart, however, & it is this chart which truly separates the Mentzer/Moldvay dragon from Holmes. Mentzer's chart shows the possibilities of a dragon of specific color to talk, to be asleep, & then also, how many spells per level they can cast, as all types have spell casting abilities. Mentzer's dragons are closer to AD&D than Holmes'. Holmes decided not to include any info on talking, or spell casting. This is interesting, & appealing, & though I cant yet say for sure how it'll play out in Holmentzer, for now, I'm leaning toward Holmes, while allowing additional colors from Mentzer. Will revisit this, most likely.

Dwarf is in H & M, & is generally, the same, except Mentzer specifies individual Treasure type, plus adds more mechanical description.

E - K
L - O
P - S
T - Z

HOLMENTZER MONSTERS: INTRO

The 1st things I need to get in order for Holmentzer, for obv reasons, are MONSTERS, & while doing an initial run through & tally of each monster section I found that monster-wise, these books truly compliment one another. Holmes Blue Book, unlike any of the Basic books after it, includes a lot of high HD monsters (e.g. Purple Worm, Giants, Black Pudding, etc.), while Mentzer, like Moldvay, focuses mainly on low HD fantastical creatures, branching into more wildernessy animals/monsters (e.g. Bats, Bears, Snakes, Giant Bees, etc.) not in Holmes, a number not in Moldvay either.  All-in-all, a good fusion of monsters for both dungeon & wilderness.

INITIAL BREAKDOWN: Both Holmes & Mentzer have stats for 65 monsters each. 23 monsters in each are different from the other, therefore, a total of 88 singular monsters are collected from the two: 42 monsters shared, 23 in Holmes only, 23 in Mentzer only.

As for the 42 monsters found in both, I've started comparing them, & for those w/ conflicting stats, thinking how to reconcile'm. My initial on-the-fly self wants to simply say use Holmes stats for dungeon and Mentzer stats for wilderness/town. But that would be too easy, so I plan to go a bit deeper, starting w/ A & ending w/ Z. I dont plan to list, or mention every monster here on the blog, but only those that interest me in some way through the process (this may include compare/contrast between Mentzer & Moldvay as well, esp. for those monsters not in Holmes).