Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jaldaen" data-source="post: 1236584" data-attributes="member: 214">How would it be noted however if not by its omission? Would you have to have an entry in a creature's SQ that says what it does not have? Herein lies the problem with assuming something must be indicated by expressed stance rather than by ommision.Look at the Grimlock for instance... it does not list darkvision under SQ. Under your assumption the grimlock would have darkvision 60 ft. since it is not specifically stated that they do not gain it, under mine it does not. I think it is clear that grimlocks should not have darkvision... As for the hags, why do two of the hags have darkvision listed under SQ and one does not? I think that is indicative of the sea hag not having darkvision. If WotC is going to start listing darkvision under SQ for most creatures, then why would they not do so for all... I see that as WotC's method of indicating when a creature does not have darkvision... by ommision.As for the specific entries taking precedence over the glossary entry isn't that indicated in the glossary itself by the words "unless otherwise noted in a creatures entry." This indicates to me that a creatures entry overrides the "norm" and since I see darkvision listed in many of the other creatures entries and omitted from some that that is the manner in which it is noted.As for the doppleganger it is an obvious errata as under the centaur entry it lists darkvision 60 under SQ and in the Centaurs as Characters section... which tells me someone goofed that entry.I've got to go,Joseph</blockquote>

Verification