AD&D 1E XP Value for Monsters?

[Celebrim]

There. Done!
Hmm… I’m actually not liking all of this at all.

For one, all of it is based on at least two arbitrary decisions.

Many more than that. Regardless of which edition of D&D we are talking about, assigning a "challenge rating" and thus a reward to defeating a monster always involves a ton of arbitrary decisions starting in the 1e AD&D case with the numbers assigned to each line in the table. What you are going for is never objectively true numbers, but rather "good enough" estimates relative to other monsters that exist or you might design. That is, for whatever process you come up with, the only real test is: "If this monster X is by a reasonable standard harder/tougher than this monster Y, does X also yield a suitably larger reward than Y?" And you are never going to get there perfectly. All you can manage is to try to get close enough that any problems are not obvious.

I do appreciate though your attempt at rigor. I'd be interested to see if you could reverse engineer where I'm getting my revised dragons. Speaking of...

For two, calculating dragon xp is gonna be an even bigger headache that it already is, and not only because of the “special defense” mentioned in the red dragon example in the DMG (p. 85).

It's worse than that because dragons break all the rules normally applying to other monsters because of the rule about hit points/hit die. The basis of giving an award for a monster of a particular HD has baked into it an assumption that those hit points probably come in some reasonable range. Normally the hit points of the monster contribute only a relatively small portion of the reward because normally there isn't huge extreme differences in the amount of hit points needed to kill a monster, and the amount of hit points needed to kill a monster don't also determine many of its abilities. But neither of those things is true of 1e AD&D dragons with their special exceptions to all other rules. I would contend that an 10 h.p. monster is a lot easier to kill than an 80 h.p. monster; so much so that the table of rewards don't reflect the difference in this extreme of a case.

Because how many “major breath weapons” do dragons with multiple “major breath weapons” (e.g., gold dragon, silver dragon) have?

In general, because they can only use one at a time, I would tend to say that they only have one.

I can see why Appendix E says that Tiamat has 5 breath weapons, for they all inflict damage and they come from five different heads.

I would say that Tiamat has 5 breath weapons, but it might be a mistake to quintuple count them if you are also already giving her a multi-attack extraordinary ability since attacks are not useable with bites and employing multiple breath weapons might be seen as a parallel to multiple attacks. But then again, though I LOATHE the design of 1e AD&D Tiamat with a burning hatred and strongly suggest no one ever use it; if I were to use it, I might make an exception for Tiamat in that each of her breath weapons hits the rule for single attacks doing at least X damage and thus makes it worthy of an EAXPA x 5.

But then why doesn’t the pyrohydra have “breath weapons”? Because all of them generate the same effect?

No, but rather the same logic I just applied to Tiamat. Breath weapons are an alternative to bites, and the hydra is already getting the power of making multiple attacks counted. "Can make multiple attacks" and "Can do minor breath weapons" are here counting separate things, and recounting each breath weapon would be excessive.

Hydra though is unlike the dragons a really good case because the hydra's reward is intrinsically tied to hit dice so that there is no need to quadruple count a 16HD hydra's multi-attacks (4 instances of 4 or more attacks or 8 instances of a breath weapon or whatever) because the table itself has a built in assumption that most of the difficulty of a monster is intrinsically in its HD and that higher HD monsters generally bring along with them more extreme and powerful abilities and so the rewards of their extraordinary abilities and special abilities and base rewards are all also higher leading to no need to double count a 16HD breath weapon as twice that of a 8HD breath weapon. If the hydras number of heads weren't attached to its HD, then yes, we'd need extra counting to potentially differentiate 4 attacks from 8 or 12 or 16.

So, should they count for the amount of damage a monster can deliver in a single round?

I generally didn't. I saw this as double counting since a major breath weapon to me implied it met that rule or something similarly lethal. But again, this is all going to be subjective at some level. What's not important really is the rules you set, but rather that once you apply your judgment to each monster, you end up with a ranking of rewards that very closely matches a ranking of difficulty.

 

[Moving Pictures]

Back to the table.... you have

Trying to avoid the “splitting” effects territory—and failing miserably

Breath weapon or major breath weapon?
DMG, p. 227: “Breath Weapon — Special attack of certain creatures like dragons, chimerae, etc. causing any of several different effects. For saving throw purposes the “Breath Weapon” category excludes petrification and polymorph results, which have their own category.
So what is a “major breath weapon”? Many things have been said about this, but there’s nothing conclusive in the MM, DMG, and PHB that I can find, with (possibly) two exceptions.

You are overthinking this.

The table (table 32 in the DMG) gives +2 dice equivalence to a breath weapon. Do that.
The table gives +1 dice to any singular attack doing more than 20 points damage. I'd argue that includes the breath weapon.
The table gives +2 dice equivalence to a being able to cause more than 30 points damage/round. I'd argue that includes the breath weapon.

 

[Lanefan]

Trying to avoid the “splitting” effects territory—and failing miserably

Breath weapon or major breath weapon?
DMG, p. 227: “Breath Weapon — Special attack of certain creatures like dragons, chimerae, etc. causing any of several different effects. For saving throw purposes the “Breath Weapon” category excludes petrification and polymorph results, which have their own category.
So what is a “major breath weapon”? Many things have been said about this, but there’s nothing conclusive in the MM, DMG, and PHB that I can find, with (possibly) two exceptions.

The first is that “An ancient spell-using red dragon of huge size with 88 hit points (…)” has a major breath weapon (DMG, p. 85), which is obviously a bit of a no-brainer, because it can inflict 88 points of damage in a 5×90×30-ft cone.

The second is that some breath weapons allow for different saving throws. Not sure what to do with this, but this obviously includes the gorgon, which has “breath weapon” in Appendix E instead of something including words like “petrifies” or “turns to stone”, which sucks. And what about the iron golem, which "will breathe out a cloud of poisonous gas" and has “poison gas” in Appendix E?

And then there’s the notion that there are/were “saving throws against dragon breath”; that Tiamat has “breath weapons”, and Bahamut a “breath weapon”; that all other metallic dragons have a “breath weapon”, and that the silver dragon has “breath weapons” in the MM; and that, notably, a pyrohydra also has a “breath weapon”.
So does the latter mean: one monster, one breath weapon? But then only for monsters with multiple mouths for the same effect because Tiamat? And does a metallic dragon just have one breath weapon that can generate different effects? A “weapon” with multiple aspects, as it were?

Unfortunately, the notion that the xp values of monster abilities are based on “effects that cause harm in combat” isn’t much help here, and changing it to “effects that inflict damage in combat” is gonna open up even more cans of worms than I’m already trying to close.

So maybe we should take the category “attacks causing maximum damage greater than 24 singly” being worth an EAXPA as a guideline? As noted earlier, this will make the chimera’s breath weapon (3-24 damage) not a “major breath weapon”, while some younger dragons will not have one either. Not sure if I’d want to treat the chimera’s breath weapon as a “minor breath weapon”, by the way, coz that would mean trouble.

Let’s see which monsters actually breathe out some harmful substance, regardless of whether this ability is defined as a breath weapon or not. And let’s, for reasons, split them into area-affecting “breath weapons” and those that can only affect a single creature.

View attachment 421203

Well, this doesn’t really get me anywhere, except that some dragons and dragon turtles definitely have a “major breath weapon”; that the gold dragon may have two of them; that there’s a saving throw vs dragon breath instead of one vs paralyzation for the silver dragon’s paralyzing breath weapon; that there can be a saving throw vs dragon breath even if a breath weapon can only affect a single individual; and that there’s nothing to prevent an anhkheg’s “squirt acid” ability from being a (major?) breath weapon, unless it is delivered through some other orifice (because skunk).

In any case, all of this suggests that simply going with Appendix E “breath weapon” as the basis for a “major breath weapon” doesn’t seem right. For why would the gorgon’s “breath weapon” be a “major breath weapon” and the iron golem’s “poison gas” not be one—and not even be a breath weapon at that?

I guess I’m stuck.

Main question 1: Does a “breath weapon” in general need to affect an area?
Answer: Probably not.
Main question 2: What defines a “major breath weapon”, other than being able to inflict 88 points of damage?
Answer: No idea.

Decision time the first
Let’s go with the notion that a “major breath weapon” must generate some “major effect” worth an EAXPA. This means at least 25 points of damage (as per the massive damage rule, singly); or instant death (e.g., poison); or paralysis; or system shock (e.g., petrification). And let’s assume, for the moment at least, that it need not be able to affect an area.

This nets us the following:

View attachment 421204
View attachment 421205

Breath weapons that generate spell(-like) effects
Although I’m gonna regret this, I’m gonna say that breath weapons that generate a spell-like effect in an area are typically gonna be “major breath weapons.” Why? Because, in case of metallic dragons, I’d say that the spell-like effects they generate are not not really based on “minor (basically defensive) spells”, therefore putting them on par with “spell use”, which is an EAXPA.

Sleep, though but a 1st-level spell, affects creatures of all levels and basically renders them “motionless”, as per “paralysis.”
Fear is a 4th-level spell and sort of forces creatures to act against their will (which will become important later on).
Repulsion is a 6th-level spell and therefore hardly “minor”, while it also prevents creatures from approaching the dragon—and therefore inflict damage on it in melee.
Slow is a 3rd-level spell and curtails creatures’ abilities to inflict damage.
Gaseous form, while not a spell, prevents creatures from acting at all, while it could also be argued that it is a “transformation” effect, and therefore a shock to the system.

Drat. This sounds weaker than I thought it would, for it could easily be argued that these breath weapons are “special defenses”, perhaps like the nightmare’s smoke cloud and the giant squid’s ink cloud. Or maybe not. They’re “breath weapons” after all, and mentioned under “special attacks” rather than under “special defenses.”

View attachment 421206

There. Done!
Hmm… I’m actually not liking all of this at all.

For one, all of it is based on at least two arbitrary decisions.

For two, calculating dragon xp is gonna be an even bigger headache that it already is, and not only because of the “special defense” mentioned in the red dragon example in the DMG (p. 85).
Because how many “major breath weapons” do dragons with multiple “major breath weapons” (e.g., gold dragon, silver dragon) have? I can see why Appendix E says that Tiamat has 5 breath weapons, for they all inflict damage and they come from five different heads. Is that why the gold dragon doesn’t have “breath weapons”? But then why doesn’t the pyrohydra have “breath weapons”? Because all of them generate the same effect?
Does the silver dragon have “breath weapons” in the MM because one of them inflicts massive damage and the other generates and EAXPA effect? Then why doesn’t Bahamut have “breath weapons”?
Mind = blown.

For three, is this going to mean that a “minor breath weapon” is either worth 1×EAXPA as a “special attack”, or that it isn’t worth nothing at all, other than for the massive damage count in a round? Or both? Which would make things even worse.

For four, must the 3-12 hp damage from Juiblex’ slime-spitting be seen as “damage” per round, and must the “near instant death” from the green slime be worth 1×EAXPA? This would mean that one spit would be worth 1×SAXPB, plus 1×EAXPA, at the very least. Still, the miscreant has 47280 xp, so not all may be lost just yet.

For five, does splitting the “breath weapon” of Juiblex as above mean that the breath weapons of the iron golem and the gorgon are now gonna be worth 1×EAXPA for being “major breath weapons”, and 1×EAXPA for their effects? It would still sort of fit, though, for the gorgon has 5×EAXPA in its xp value, which would be 3×EAXPA for its petrification effect (as often seems to be the case), and at least 1×EAXPA for its “major breath weapon”. And the iron golem has 1×SAXPB plus 4×EAXPA making up its xp value, which would be … oh, never mind.
And then what about the silver dragon’s breath weapons? 2×EAXPA for two major breath weapons, plus 1×EAXPA for one of them being paralyzation? Then why not an extra EAXPA for the massive damage inflicted by a huge, ancient version? Because of the red dragon xp example in the DMG? Which adds things up wrongly anyway?

For six…, well, there’s a lot more.

For seven, and most important of all, all of this is probably nothing at all like what they were thinking when they made Appendix E.

Massive damage?
Deciding what “major breath weapons” are has left me with many breath weapons and similar attacks that have not been given an SAXPB or EAXPA. Should they have one? Should there be a special attack called “minor breath weapon”? I’d rather there wasn’t, for why didn’t they think of that?
But they should count for something, if only because at least one of them is listed as a “breath weapon”; most have a saving throw; and many can inflict considerable damage, if not “massive damage”.

So, should they count for the amount of damage a monster can deliver in a single round? Obviously, most of them do not fall into the category “attacks causing maximum damage greater than 24 singly”, and not just because I’ve suggested that this category “pertains only to physical acts and/or “natural weaponry” only … for now.”

So what if we would just forget about that suggestion, which…, um, I’ve already done with diseases? Take into account any and all damaging attacks a monster can unleash in a round? And use the category “attacks causing maximum damage greater than 42 in all combinations possible in 1 round” for moral support?
Nope, not gonna work in most, if not all cases. Most notably, dragons cannot attack and use a breath weapon in the same round, and something like that is probably true for the electric eel (jolt), the ice toad (cold radiation, which is actually a “cold blast”), and the djinni and the air elemental (the whirlwind actually transforms them).

Another problem would be that they cannot really be counted as an “additional attack” as far as the number of attacks per round is concerned, because that’s a fixed number in both Appendix E and the MM.

The “Attacks affecting an area” angle
Considering all of the above, it’s probably not worth even trying to go into this.

Or is it?
Maybe the fact that breath weapons do affect an area makes them a special attack in their own right? And since they’re not “major breath weapons”, are they just “special attacks” worth 1×EAXPA? So would that lift the “pertains only to physical acts and/or “natural weaponry” only … for now”-limit on special attacks?
And yet, though that’s probably inevitable anyway for many other reasons, I’m still gonna hold back on that, mostly because the “special attacks” category in the monster xp value table in the DMG involving “physical attacks” solely* is just about the only thing in it that is consistent.

Which leaves the non-“major breath weapons” up in the air… for now.

View attachment 421207

Blinding spittle is just another form of missile discharge, only with an effect other than damage. That said, blindness maps to an offensive spell effect and thus could count as EAXPB. Tough call.

For squirt acid and low-end breath weapons the easiest answer is a maximum-damage cutoff: if it can potentially do more than 30 points to a single target or more than 15 points to multiple targets, it's EAXPB. Fail to meet either of those thresholds and it's SAXPB. Thus, the "squirt acid" that can do up to 32 points damage is EAXPB as it hits the 30-point threshold.

Disease is an oddball and probably best handled case by case. Cutoff for me would be fatal = EAXPB and non-fatal = SAXPB.

Other than that, I'd bundle strength loss, strength drain, feeblemind, etc. into a catch-all "ability loss" category and just make them all EAXPB; which makes it easier to design one's own monsters that affect abilities.

In your previous list I didn't see psionics mentioned, and it's not in the original DMG list either. How would you fit psionic use in for calculating xp for Mind Flayers, Demons, and so forth?