Finishing Trying to finish the EAXPAs for non-magical special attacks, or: Massive damage
DMG, p. 85: “Judicious application of these guidelines will assume that an equitable total number of experience points are given for slaying any given monster. Special ability bonus awards should be cumulative, i.e., a gargoyle attacks 4 times per round and can be hit only by magic weapons, so a double Special Ability X.P. Bonus should be awarded. Likewise, if there are multiple exceptional abilities, the awards should reflect this.”
EAXPA-wise, that leaves us with just the “massive damage” categories. You’d say this would be pretty straightforward… but it isn’t.
First, how does one treat monsters capable of, say, both “causing maximum damage greater than 24 singly” and “causing maximum damage greater than 30 doubly”
(e.g., bulette, dragon turtle)? Does one just consider them monsters capable of inflicting massive damage? Or as monsters with two “exceptional abilities”?
Second, does any massive damage count apply only to how much damage a monster can inflict against a single opponent? I’d say no, for strictly speaking, a monster capable of attacking multiple opponents in a round is as much a monster capable of inflicting massive damage as one that can attack only a single opponent in a round.
However, the hydra (“1-4 attacks on same opponent” and the Monster Manual stating that it has “5 to 12 attacks”), and the African elephant (5 attacks, 2-16(×2)/2-12(×3) hp damage; MM “One opponent can be subject to no more than two of these attacks at the same time but several opponents can be fought simultaneously […]”) throw some doubt on all this.
Third, does only the “No. of Attacks” category count for the “attacks causing maximum damage greater than [n]” categories? Therefore removing/excluding any special attacks from the equation?
For example, what about the bulette, which has 3 attacks per round, for 4-48/3-18/3-18 hp damage (being damage greater than 24, singly; damage greater than 30, doubly; damage greater than 36, trebly; and damage greater than 42 in all combinations possible), plus a special attack that allows it to attack four times in round (worth an SAXPB in its own right)—and inflict 3-18/3-18/3-18/3-18 hp damage (being damage greater than 30, doubly; damage greater than 36, trebly; damage greater than 42 in all combinations possible)?
Fourth, does “attacks causing maximum damage greater than 42 in all combinations possible in 1 round” include any special attacks in and of its own right?
I suppose the bulette sort of answers all four questions at once, for adding everything up would give it truly
massive xp, even more than it has in Appendix E—which, by the way, one should never use for the purpose of making sense of the xp values in Appendix E. So let’s not—though I did.
Um…
I suppose that the “No. of Attacks” and “Special Attacks” are each a category in their own right, wherefore I’d say that any massive damage counts should apply to either.
In the case of the bulette, this would mean that it would get (at least) 1×EAXPA for having attacks that “cause maximum damage greater than 24 singly” (its bite).
Next, it has a “Special Attack”, which should be worth something. But what? According to… um, me, that would be 1×EAXPA because it gives it “attacks that cause maximum damage greater than 30, doubly”. But does the special attack allow it to attack four or more times in a round? Yes, it does. So, another EAXPA for that?
I’d be inclined to say “yes” to that—but that feels like lacking cohesion of any kind.
Multiple opponents
This is an easy one, for I’m gonna go for “a monster capable of inflicting massive damage” being just that, regardless of how many opponents it can attack in a round. There, done.
Note to self: Do not mention that being able to attack multiple opponents is worth xp in 2E, and possibly in 1E as well.
Adding up all massive damage categories
DMG, p. 85: Typical special abilities: 4 or more attacks per round, missile discharge, armor class 0,or lower, special attacks ((blood drain, hug, crush, etc.), special defenses (regeneration; hit only by special and/or magic weapons), high intelligence which actually affects combat, use of minor (basically defensive) spells.
Typical exceptional abilities: energy level drain, paralysis, poison, major breath weapon, magic resistance, spell use, swallowing whole, weakness, attacks causing maximum damage greater than 24 singly, 30 doubly, 36 trebly, or 42 in all combinations possible in 1 round.
Based on the bulette example above; the red dragon xp example in the DMG (p. 85), which just has an xp value for “attack damage of 3-30/bite” and not one for all three attacks being able to inflict 46 hp damage; the fact that DMG, p. 85, says “
or” when it lists the typical exceptional abilities and does
not do so when it lists special abilities; and the fact that multiple massive damage categories typically do not lead to more xp in Appendix E, I’m gonna say:
“No!
There can be only one.”
There. Done!
Note to self, primo: Do not mention that the red dragon xp example in the DMG is crappy anyway.
Note to self, secundo: Never mention that you’ve consulted the xp values in Appendix E for the purpose of trying to make sense of the xp values in Appendix E.
Note to self, tertio: Never consult the xp values in Appendix E again for the purpose of trying to make sense of the xp values in Appendix E.
Which brings us to Titanothere
Titanothere is listed as having one attack capable of inflicting 2-16 hp damage, plus a special attack that says “charge (4-32), trample (2-12/2-12)”. Easy. That’s 1×EAXPA for having an attack that causes “maximum damage greater than 24 singly.”
Sudden side-trek: Hold yer horses, old boy!
DMG, p. 66: Charge: This action brings the charging party into combat on the charge round, but there are a number of considerations when it is taken.
DMG, p. 66: Melee At End of Charge: (...) Charging creatures gain +2 on their “to hit” dice if they survive any non-charging or charging opponent attacks which occur first.
But isn’t a “charge” a special attack in its own right?
Why, yes, it is! As is a “charge/trample”, a “trample”, and even a “diving”.
But why? A charge or dive isn’t really a “ranged attack” (because it ends in melee), it typically doesn’t inflict massive damage, it doesn’t count for the number of attacks, wherefore it doesn’t add to the massive damage count.
So maybe it’s a special attack because it allows a monster to inflict more damage with either a single physical attack or attack routine, or by way of additional attacks in the same round?
I’m liking that notion a lot, for that is actually also the case with the “hug”, the “rending”, the “double damage on 20” variants, and the “rear claws” to boot! The latter could also fall into the category “4+ attacks”, but that’s an SAXPB anyway, so there you go (or maybe not). Besides, the rear claws are conditional and it’s probably safer to assume that the number of attacks is typically based on the “No. of Attacks” in Appendix E and the Monster Manual (or maybe not).
Let’s see where this gets me.
That is sort of amazing, actually. Only three problems in all of that.
Monoclonius and
Styracosaurus are doubtful, and the question remains whether
Titanothere’s charge should count, for it already has 1×EAXPA for massive damage. So, does the charge being “an attack that allows it inflict more damage than usual” allow it an SAXPB as well?
Hmm… perhaps so, for DMG, p. 85 says: “Special ability bonus awards should be cumulative, i.e., a gargoyle attacks 4 times per round and can be hit only by magic weapons, so a double Special Ability X.P. Bonus should be awarded. Likewise, if there are multiple exceptional abilities, the awards should reflect this.”
I know that this would apply to many things that went before, such as the possibility of “4+ attacks” for the “rear claws”, but still.
The return of the bulette
But then what about the bulette’s “8’ jump”, which allows it to attack four times in a round and inflicts massive damage? Is it a “move that allows it to inflict more damage than usual with physical attacks”? Am I to go with the whole combo making for 1×SAXPB for “4+ attacks”, and then 1×EAXPA for “attacks causing maximum damage greater than, 30 doubly”, or is the “8’ jump” just gonna get xp for a “move that allows it to inflict more damage than usual with physical attacks”?
Hmm… it may be that my definition of a “charge” category needs work.
Anyway, were was I?
I’d say that dealing with the massive damage categories has just left the EAXPA for “spell use” up in the air as far as a monster’s “special attacks worth an EAXPA while trying to avoid magical effects” are concerned. And since this means that “spell use” is best left where it is for now, there is the small issue of numerous “special attacks” listed in Appendix E that “feel like they should be worth an EAXPA” but do not appear to fall into any of the categories listed in the EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS table on page 85 of the DMG.
Dinosaurs
Appendix E lists “step on” as a “Special Attack” for a number of dinosaurs. The issue here may be that I suppose it could be argued that this is not an actual “special attack” because the Monster Manual suggests that this is done by accident rather than by design, and Appendix E doesn’t give any xp for it. However,
because Appendix E lists it as a “Special Attack”, I’d say that the beasts can inflict “damage greater than 24”, which means 1×EAXPA. That’s what I’d do, anyway.
More dinosaurs
DMG, p. 200: “* Dinosaur stampede kills creatures; marine dinosaurs upset craft to get at prey.”
DMG, p. 55: “It is possible to swim in leather and padded armor, but it is awkward and there is a 5% chance of drowning per hour. All heavy possessions must be discarded or the chance of drowning increases by 2% for every 5 pounds on the character's person other than his or her leather or padded armor. This includes weapons, purses filled with gold and/or gems, backpacks and hard boots. One unsheathed dagger may be carried by the adventurer between his or her teeth. Swimming during winds above 35 miles per hour will be almost impossible, and there is a 75% chance of drowning.”
Ah, yes, the “stampede”, which Appendix E lists as a footnote for dinosaurs and as a “Special Attack” for wild cattle and herd animals—and then doesn’t award any xp to any of them. While, technically speaking, stampeding should be worth an EAXPA for the possibility of “instant death without regard for hit points”, I suppose the problem here would be that a stampede involves the entire herd as opposed to a single specimen.
So, should a single monster that can stampede get 1×EAXPA for its ability to “be part of a herd that can stampede”? Or should this EAXPA only come into play after a herd has been dealt with/evaded by the PCs? Or only after the herd has actually stampeded and (most/some of) the party escaped with their lives? And how many xp would that net them? For, say, each separate dino including its EAXPA for stampeding? For all dinos of the herd and then with a single EAXPA added for the stampede?
As to the “upset craft to get at prey” (marine dinosaurs), plus the “capsizing” of the dragon turtle and “upset river craft” of the hippopotami I’d say this involves at least two things that smell of EAXPAs, being: risk of “near instant death without regard for hit points” (drowning; plate mail!), plus “being able to affect lots of folks in an area” (like it could be for breath weapons). Unfortunately, the jury’s still out on whether area-of-effect-effects should be worth an SAXPB/EAXPA. But drowning looks to be a serious risk for at least some PCs, so I’d say it’s an EAXPA anyway.
Speaking of drowning
Appendix E has “drag into water” for the water weird, while the Monster Manual has “drowning” as its special attack, and then just “Any creature struck will be dragged into the water unless it saves versus paralyzation” in the text. So, should the dragging into the water be an EAXPA? Probably.
Stat drains, probably being “magical effects” in some cases
Because the only thing that will infuriate PCs only marginally less than draining their levels, I’d say that any ability to drain stats for any length of time is worth at least 1×EAXPA. Well, not only that, but also because there’s “weakness” (effectively strength drain) being an EAXPA, as well as that there’s such a thing that any stat 0 is “(near) instant death without regard for hp.”
So, that’s the cerebral parasite (infest psionics), the lamia (touch drains 1 point of wisdom), the intellect devourer (devour mental energy), the quasit (attack poison causes dexterity loss [1/hit]), and the shadow (drain strength) covered.
I suppose Demogorgon’s ability to cause “insanity” with one of its gaze attacks effectively drains intelligence and wisdom (much like
feeblemind), so that’s at least 1×EAXPA as well. Even if it lasts only 1-6 turns, which may have to be read as “1-6 rounds” because OD&D (Eldritch Wizardry, p. 37).
Rotting
Apart from Demogorgon’s tentacles being able to make limbs rot away and fall off—which I’d say would be worth an EAXPA if ever you saw one—they can also lead to “near instant death without regard for hit points” if they would touch someone’s body, making it worth at least 1×EAXPA.
As an aside, if the violet fungi’s “rotting poison” would lead to things falling off of people or people just dying quickly, it would also be worth an EAXPA. Alas, the Monster Manual just has “The excretion from these branches rots flesh in but one melee round unless a saving throw versus poison is made or a
cure disease is used” to say on the subject, which doesn’t help much.
Oh.
The ear seeker’s “burrowing into ear to brain” can cause “(near) instant death without regard for hit points” in 4 hours, which would make it an EAXPA in my book.
The gas spore’s “infestation (on touch)” is fatal in 24 hours and can only be countered by
cure disease. Perhaps that has the markings of a fatal disease more so than “instant death or near instant death without regard for hit points”, leaving it up in the air.
It seems that THIS ENDS THE SECTION ON EAXPAs FOR “SPECIAL ATTACKS” WHILE TRYING TO AVOID MAGICAL EFFECTS.
So now things get complicated, or: Is there such a thing as “helplessness” (not “motionlessness”)?
DMG, p. 70: Stunned, Prone or Motionless Opponents: Treat all such opponents as if being attacked from the rear, but in this case the “to hit” bonus is +4 rather than +2.
DMG, p. 70: “Magically Sleeping or Held Opponents: If a general melee is in progress, and the attacker is subject to enemy actions, then these opponents are automatically struck by any attack to which they would normally be subject, and the maximum damage possible according to the weapon type is inflicted each time such an opponent is so attacked. The number of attacks or attack routines possible against such an opponent is twice the number normally allowed in a round. Otherwise, such opponents may be automatically slain, or bound as appropriate to materials at hand and size, at a rate of one per round. Note that this does not include normally sleeping opponents (see ASSASSINS’ TABLE FOR ASSASSINATIONS).”
This is a tricky one for many reasons, among which that it involves me changing the phenomenon of “helplessness” I defined earlier to “motionlessness”, plus that it’s gonna involve some “magical attacks”.
The premise here is that paralysis leads to “motionlessness
ad infinitum”, effectively allowing a monster to do whatever it likes to the victims (typically eating them or worse), which makes “paralysis/motionlessness” worth an EAXPA. While that seems as clear-cut as it can be, that leaves other abilities that can lead to effects similar to motionlessness out in the open, especially because many of them have a duration that can vary from a single round to… um, more rounds.
So, is there to be a category called something like “helplessness but not motionlessness”?
Let’s see which effects that crop up in Appendix E in one way or another (including magical ones) can lead to “helplessness”:
First, there’s
hold person
Second, there’s catalepsy, such as caused by the poison sting of the pseudo-dragon
Third, there’s unconsciousness, such as generated by the “pain poison” of the erinyes
Fourth, there’s magical or drug- or poison-induced sleep, which, although easily remedied in one round, can lead to a quick death (automatic kill in non-combat situations)
Fifth, there is “paralyzed with fright”
And, finally, there’s stunning
Most of these have a fixed—typically short—duration, which sets them apart from “paralysis” as I’ve tried to define it earlier. Of some note in this respect is that blindness and deafness do not actually lead to “helplessness” in game terms: it’s just some penalties and difficulty casting spells. Of further note would be that some attacks that “restrain”
(e.g., the trapper, the bone devil’s bone hook) are perhaps not really leading to the “helplessness” I’m currently trying to get my head around.
The first problem is that
sleep and
hold person are spell-like effects (well, usually), which are probably best saved for later, but have to be dealt with here anyway.
The second problem is stunning, for it can come about in many ways—including magical ones—and its effects have to be pieced together.
The third problem is “hypnosis” aka “hypnotism”, which I shall leave out of the equation for now other than when it is clear that it leads to an effect like
hold person (floating eye).
The fourth problem, consequently, is that the phenomenon of “helplessness” is gonna seriously blur more than a couple of lines I’ve drawn in the sand so far.
Let’s try stunning first
Stunning can come about by physical blow (catoblepas, horned devil), blinding light (floating eye), poison (manta ray), sound (the 3rd roar of the androsphinx, which has a saving throw vs dragon breath, by the way), spell
(power word—stun, trip), and psionics.
Oh. And non-lethal combat, which we shall leave out of the equation for obvious reasons, and despite the DMG stating (p. 73): “Creatures will always attack to overbear if they do not use weapons, except bears and similar monsters who seek to crush opponents by hugging attacks (these are grappling).” Thanks, Gary!
As far as I’m aware, the game effects of “stunning” have to be pieced together:
+4 to hit for opponents (DMG, p. 70)
-3 on saving throws (DMG, p. 78)
-50% move (PHB, p. 53: Holy (Unholy) Word)
no successful performing of spell casting (PHB, p. 76: Dimension Door)
reeling and unable to think coherently or act (PHB, p. 88: Power Word, Stun)
+4 to hit as the opponent is not capable of dodging or defending against the attack effectively (PHB, p. 89: Bigby’s Clenched Fist)
stunned and reeling (…) dropping anything it or they hold in manipulative members (PHB, p. 92: Symbol)
Furthermore, not all attacks that stun allow for saving throws. There is often simply a percentage chance that one will end up stunned.
So. “Helpless”? Yes. “Motionless” and “about to meet one’s maker in a jiffy”? Not really. At least not in and of itself, for being stunned by the catoblepas is probably not going to end well.
Despite the seriousness of ending up stunned, I’d be inclined to say that it is less bad than paralysis and what it often means. So is it an SAXPB? Perhaps it is when it is the result of a physical blow? And perhaps it isn’t if it is the result of
power word—stun (not so minor spell use), psionic blast (psionics), or the 3rd roar of the androsphinx (30’ radius)?
Well, that didn’t work, so let’s do “paralyzed with fright” next
And look who’s here again: the androsphinx, this time with its 2nd roar (“roar”; actually paralyzed with fright for 1-4 rds). There’s also the mummy (“fear”
and “paralyzation” [… great!]; actually paralyzed with fright and then some for 1-4 rds), and the yeti (“paralyzation”; actually rigid with fright for 3 rds).
So. Paralyzed and therefore motionless. For a couple of rounds. As serious as “true” paralysis? Highly likely in the case of the mummy, perhaps not so much for the yeti, and then obviously not for the androsphinx because all PCs are heroes and therefore of good alignment.
Well, that didn’t work either, so let’s do “sleep” next
Apart from the fact that
sleep is a 1st-level spell and that it could be seen as a “minor (basically defensive) spell” unless doled out in massive amounts as per dragon breaths, there is no saving throw against it and it renders its victims “helpless”—motionless, even—and possibly instantly dead in non-combat situations.
The candidates are:
* beholder (“magic”;
“sleep spell”, so no saving throw; not gonna end well)
* type VI demon (“magic use”;
symbol—sleep, so catatonic slumber and cannot be awakened for 5-16 turns; not gonna end well)
* brass dragon (done and dusted unless the “sleep” effect counts in addition to it having a major breath weapon, which it doesn’t)
* homonculous (“bite causes sleep”; save vs magic; comatose for 5-30 minutes, whatever those are)
* jackalwere (“sleep gaze affects any level not saving”; save vs magic; no duration and then murdered and eaten)
* night hag (“sleep magic”; save vs spell; no duration and then strangled and taken to Hades as a larval soul)
* ogre mage (“magic & spell use”;
sleep, so no saving throw; not gonna end well)
* pixie (“special arrows”; save vs magic; comatose for 1-6 hrs)
* satyr (“magic pipes”;
sleep, but still a saving throw vs magic; 60’ hearing radius; items stolen)
* sprite (“sleep arrows”; save vs poison; comatose for 1-6 hrs and taken far, far away; unless evil, when simply slain)
Motionless until roused? Chance of instant death regardless of hit points? I’d say EAXPA… if not for the fact that some effects have a duration.
Oh dear
Yeah, this isn’t going as I’d like at all. I guess the only ways to get around all of this is by either allowing a duration for “helplessness”, or allowing for “motionlessness” to have one.
Or by just forgetting about the phenomenon of “helplessness” and judging the various “attacks” by other standards?
Yeah, that just seems really silly, and only shows why I thought of the phenomenon of “helplessness” in the first place.
So, allow for “motionlessness” to have a duration, and then change it back to “helplessness” to cover all of
hold person, catalepsy, pain poison (fainting), sleep in any way or form, paralyzed with fright, and stunning?
I suppose it’s the only way to go.
But I don’t like it, especially because it is not very likely
anything at all like
what they were thinking when they made Appendix E.
