But… I. WANT. TO. KNOW.
So lets try and build on the notion of not adding up a gazillion special defenses. Let’s assume that “impervious to fire” and its variants actually only have meaning as far as “magically generated” fire is concerned
(e.g., fireball, red dragon breath, and their variants). I mean, hitting someone with a torch or leaving them outside on a cold winter’s night isn’t gonna have much of a game effect on even a PC anyway, while the second wouldn’t even be possible in a dungeon, where, as we know, PCs spend all of their time. Also, in fact, as much is often suggested in the various monster descriptions in the Monster Manual
(e.g., p. 99: “Vampire”).
This allows us to divide the “immunities” category into two distinct categories, namely making a monster:
This leads to the following, assuming that a “special defense” is always an SAXPB; that “immune to some spells” cannot be an EAXPA because “magic resistance” is already an EAXPA; and that “immune to some spells” actually means “immune to some spells/spell-like effects”:
The gentle reader may have noticed three things:
First, how this actually heaps “immunity to weapons” onto the same pile as “hit only by special and/or magic weapons”, which I like—I think (gotta be careful)—and wherefore I’ve added “magic weapon required to hit” to the table.
Second, how this adds a third “category of immunity” to the two we already had, namely “immune to poison” (or perhaps “immunity to a harmful substance” to be on the safe side). Strangely enough, something like this is sort of corroborated by Dragon #89, p. 49: “Resistance or immunity to poison”, but I’m gonna have to sod that because I’m not using that as a source.
Third, how some monsters are immune to paralyzation, but that this doesn’t add to the possible “immunities” categories because paralysis can come about magically or through some sort of poison, and we’ve just established an “immune to poison” category—
Dammit.
The gentle reader may have noticed four things:
First, as above.
Second, as above.
Third, as above.
Fourth, how all of this leaves us with the problem of resistances and better saving throws.
Well, nobody said this was gonna be easy
As to better saving throws against something (or everything), I’d venture that that is more a “resistance” to something than an “immunity” to one, despite the fact that passing a saving throw can lead to no adverse effects at all.
Problem is, that resistances to whatever and better saving throws vs things are arguably less worthy of an xp value than being immune to them. And since “immunities” are SAXPBs coz “special defenses” and “magic resistance”, we don't have a value for resistances and better saving throws.
Maybe listing things for a bit will help?
Why, yes it does! For that makes “resistances” and “better saving throws” do the same as “immunities”!
Well, it actually doesn’t, coz the definitions are mine, and not
theirs.
Hmm… how’s about just forgetting about resistances and better saving throws? Not really a thing, coz
they listed them as special defenses in Appendix E. Confound
they!
Still, it’s progress (of a kind)
Because we are now pretending to have “solved” the immunities and “left just the resistances and better saving throws up in the air”, I suppose some progress has been made, wherefore there is still hope that everything will somehow come together nicely in the end. /s
So, are there any more “special defense categories” we can deal with? Well, there sort of are.
There’s the “repercussions”, which are given “Special Defense” status in Appendix E, and shall therefore be worth an SAXPB—though not so sure about the salamander’s “heat”.
Same thing for the “active defenses”, which should therefore be worth an SAXPB each, if not for the fact that some of them already have a “special attack” xp value and that the “anti-magic” of the beholder is
quite the thing, as is the “special defense” aspect of the bombardier beetle’s acid cloud (stunning and deafening). And then there’s the “musk” of the giant skunk being a special defense while it is not for the wolverines—
Next!
Etherealness, then? Well—
Next!
Bloody,
bloody lamp.
The lammasu’s “protection from evil” (which is always active—and is actually
protection from evil, 10’ radius, and “double strength” at that). This combines “immune to some weapons” (natural ones—it’s a stretch, I know) and “better saving throws”. So that’s 1×SAXPB, plus—
Next!
Climbing?
Next!
Well, there ain’t that many anymore.
The gas spore’s “explosion (6-36)”? Hardly a “special defense”, first because it’s dead, and second because it will only protect it from attackers in the know—and aware of the fact that it is not a beholder. It isn’t really “attacks causing maximum damage greater than 24 singly” either, because it’s dead, which prevents it from attacking altogether.
The buffalo’s “head AC 3”? I mean, seriously?
Post scriptum: no offense, @Lanefan
The xorn’s “molecular readjustment”? Apart from allowing it move through earth, this seems to make it technically “immune” (or perhaps resistant?) to
“stone to flesh or
rock to mud spells” (MM, p. 102), which would firmly place it in the category “immunity to most spells and magic” already mentioned in Appendix E. Unless, of course, it’s a resistance.
The blink dog’s “teleport” and the unicorn’s “teleport away”, then? Well, it’s not “minor (basically defensive) spells”, coz it emulates a 5th-level spell. But why is it a “special defense” when a lot of other creatures can do the same thing as part of their array of magical or spell-like abilities or powers or feats (“spell use”)? I guess the difference here is that the blink dog and the unicorn do not have any other “spells” at their disposal?
You know what?, or: Just thinking out loud here (which I’ve been doing all along)
I’ve suddenly realized that I may have been going about this the wrong way entirely. I’ve been assuming that all special defenses must be worth an SAXPB at best, simply because DMG, p. 85 says: “special defenses (regeneration; hit only by special and/or magic weapons)”, and, crucially, has them all as SAXPBs. But that same DMG also has “magic resistance” as an EAXPA, which used to be “just a special defense” in Appendix E.
Where does that get me?
Can I make my current “immunities” worth an EAXPA? Not really, coz that would mean making “magic weapon required to hit” one, which it isn’t. But it
would solve the “immunities” vs “resistances” and “better saving throws” problem.
But it would also put “immunity to some spells” on par with “magic resistance”. Would that be a bad thing? Would a fire giant being “impervious to fire” be of the same value as a triton having “magic resistance (90%)”? Which renders it all but immune to
fireball?
Why, maybe it does. For the fire giant is always immune to
fireball, while the triton “only” has 90% chance to be “impervious” to it. Naah, that’s looking at it from a bit of a narrow perspective, isn’t it?
Oh well. Just a thought.
Which I shouldn’t have had, because all special defenses are SAXPBs. Well, except magic resistance.
Any more?
Obviously.
The “gaseous form” of the vampire? As opposed to just being able to assume gaseous form whenever, which it also can, I shall throw all caution into the wind and assume that it refers to it automatically reverting to gaseous form instead of being killed at zero hit points. Special defense it is. And could it be on par with powerful demons and devils only being definitively slain in their own plane?
Next, I’d say that the shrieker’s “noise” is a special defense if ever you saw one, but Appendix E says it isn’t worth anything xp-wise. Folks have suggested that this may be because reductions in xp values may apply when a monster cannot “attack”, but that’s probably best ignored
forever for now.
Then there’s the displacer beast with its “-2 on opponent’s “to hit” dice, +2 on own saving throws”, all of which is because
of molecular vibrations it is actually “displaced”, sort of. I’d be inclined to say that the package is worth an SAXPB as a whole, but this is about
they and not me. But maybe there’s a lesson to be learned here for “better saving throws”?
Then there’s the dryad’s “magic use”, which I suppose refers to her ability to “step into a tree and then
dimension door” to her own tree—if only because her ability to charm is already a special attack as “charm person”. I’d say that this means that, because she cannot actually “dimension door” as per the (not so minor but perhaps basically defensive) 4th-level magic-user spell,
they have decided that it was a “special defense”. Irritatingly, this ability may also be like the teleporting abilities of the blink dog and the unicorn if there were a category like “getting out of combat situations in some instantaneous fashion”… which there probably shouldn’t be.
The quasit’s “magic use & partial immunity to spells” is another problem, for what does the “magic use” mean? And why is it linked to the “partial immunity to spells” with an ampersand, suggesting that the two things are part of the same package? This may be linked to the weird stuff going on in the MM text (p. 80), which seems to list its ability to regenerate among its “spell-like abilities”, although “becoming invisible at will” and generating fear may not have been treated as such in some cases.
The morkoth’s “spell reflection” seems a fine “special defense”, perhaps even a repercussion, which would give some more body to a “repercussions as a special defense” category.
Not sure what the giant squid’s “tentacle hits” means. If it would mean that its tentacles have hit points in addition to the 12 hit dice for its body, then the zillionth world of pain will open up. Therefore, that
is probably it—hit points in addition to the main body.
And then there’s the hydras’ “all heads must be killed to slay”, which may be linked to the giant-squid’s-tentacle-thing in some weird fashion, but otherwise doesn’t seem much of a special defense, because duh!
Unless… that means that its body is “immune to damage”.
Post scriptum: it probably is!
The final big one(s)
So, Appendix E lists variants of “surprise on” as a special attack, and variants of “surprised” as a special defense. Since the first is important because of the rules for surprise, it only makes senses that the second does, too.
But then there’s such things as remaining unseen/undetected in various ways, among which “invisibility” (the spell), “becoming invisible at will”, just always being invisible (invisible stalker, pixie), hide-in-terrain variants (which, infuriatingly, can also be a “special attack”;
e.g., pungi ray), camouflage, chameleon powers, and so on, and so on. All of which, I suppose, not only increase the chances of monsters to surprise PCs, but also affect the to hit rolls of PCs in some cases.
And then there’s monsters that can sense/detect all manner of things, such as: invisibility (hell hound), enemies (unicorn), just about anyone (doppleganger, wind walker), whatevs, which I suppose will decrease their chances of being surprised.
Horror of horrors
DMG, p. 62: “While each possible cause of surprise could be detailed, with a matrix and factors of time for recovery from the condition calculated to a nicety, the overall result would not materially add to the game – in fact, the undue complication would detract from the smooth flow of play.”
Infuriatingly Surprisingly, surprise/surprised are among the few things Appendix E lists as special attacks/special defenses almost without fault (well, you know what I mean), which seems to suggest that
they thought these were
really a thing.
So, this means I’m gonna have to see what the rules for surprise and initiative are all about, which I’ve been dreading ever since I started this little experiment. For, as we all know, these rules were not meant to be understood by mortals, which the DMG (p. 61) goes on to prove by stating that “The term surprise is basically self-explanatory” and then immediately following that up with “In such circumstances the non-surprised (or less-surprised) party has an immediate advantage which is reflected in the granting of 1 or more segments of initiative, during which the active (non- or less surprised) party can take actions 4. A. through H. (…)”.
Of which the latter is “Grapple or hold”, which refers to more rules that weren’t meant to be understood by mortals.
But let’s get down to the basics, which I assume to be:
DMG, p. 61: “The surprise segment is 6 seconds”
DMG, p. 61: “Surprise is usually expressed as a 2 in 6 chance for all parties concerned (...). Each 1 of surprise equals 1 segment (six seconds) of time lost to the surprised party, and during the lost time the surprising party can freely act to escape or attack or whatever”
DMG, p. 62: “Because the party surprised is (relatively) inactive, the surprising party will be able to attempt telling blows during each segment of surprise as if the segment were an entire round!”
As far as I understand this, this means three things:
1) There can be situations in which the “surprising party” can have as many as the equivalent of “two combat rounds” to do… “whatever”, which can be pretty lethal—which is a word I probably shouldn’t have used, so let’s go with “because attempts at telling blows” instead
2) Any reduced chance of being surprised is a “special defense” that can “prevent” a monster from suffering too much damage while it is surprised
3) Most importantly, all of this suggests that I don’t really have to go into the rules for “initiative”
Okay. So, should I analyze what surprise/surprised entails (for monsters)? Something like: an increased chance to surprise is “a special attack… um, ability that can allow the monster a chance to do whatever it likes without fear of immediate repercussions”? And then: a reduced chance to be surprised is “a special defense that can allow a monster a chance to—”
You know what? Never mind.
Cool. If “surprise on” is a “special attack” worth xp, and “surprised” is a “special defense” worth xp, then what about other abilities that can increase/reduce the chances of surprise/being surprised
without actually saying so?
Excluding “surprise on”, which is a “special attack” (well, usually), we’d get the following list of relevant special defenses found in Appendix E, plus an attempt to categorize them, and then some:
Good news and bad news (mixed, coz I don’t know what the good news is and what the bad)
So. There’s many things in this list that have to do with being unseen sort of leading to a “better chance to surprise”—which is a “special attack”, like the “concealment” of the pungi ray, and the “hide in shadows” of the intellect devourer. This seems to suggest that these are valued for something other than that—well, except for the pungi ray and the intellect devourer.
Speaking of which, we should probably also forget about the “see invisible” of the pseudo-dragon being a “special attack” at this point.
So that seems to leave the “unseen” category out of the “surprised being a special defense” equation, but still special defenses of some kind. And does that mean that all other “special defenses” that do not explicitly state their effect on being surprised are also to be valued for something else? But for what? The “ability to stay out of harm’s way”? Nope.
I suppose my attempt to gather all of the above in a “surprise/surprised” category isn’t working.
Sigh. That leaves me with a lot of unknowns, if only because there’s some spell-like effects involved.
So what’s next?
DMG p. 58 lists “special defenses” as being an SAXPB—well, except for magic resistance—so should I keep it that way? Well, except for magic resistance?
That still leaves me with the question what, exactly, should be a special defense, and which of them should add up and which should not.
Sticking to the DMG in the strictest fashion possible, this would mean that any special defense is just that: a special defense worth an SAXPB.
As to the stacking, it could be argued that the answer is “no”, albeit on shaky grounds. For did
they who made the table on p. 85 just list “special defenses [followed by examples]” because listing all of them separately would take too much space? Or did
they do so because any number of special defenses is just worth worth an SAXPB because there’s only category for special defenses?
That seems silly, mainly because that would mean that a monster immune/resistant to lots of things gets just 1×SAXPB for all of that, just like a monster that just suffers one point of damage less from, say, a sharp weapon.
A fundamental change of course?
And yet, it would be in line with something I’ve started thinking of more and more while doing the special defenses. However, there’s one major problem with that thought to begin with, which is that it may not really involve
what they were thinking when they made Appendix E, although it could be related to it more than may be apparent.
What if a monster having any number of special defenses would be worth just 1×SAXPB?
As I’ve been rambling on, and therefore typing all of this—SAXPB, EAXPA, SAXPB, EAXPA, etc., etc.—I’ve started wondering more and more why DMG, p. 85, EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS, actually says SAXP
B and then EAXP
A.
Special Ability X.P.
Bonus
Exceptional Ability X.P.
Addition
Let’s looks at the relevant parts of that table in more detail—and leave the crappy examples out of all this for the time being, mostly because almost all of them blatantly contradict what is actually said in the table and its earlier appendices.
The relevant sections of the table, with its introduction and relevant footnotes on “typical abilities”, read as follows:
DMG, p. 85: “If the monster is particularly powerful, double the Exceptional Ability Addition may be awarded.
Special Ability X.P. Bonus (SAXPB)
four 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
Exceptional Ability X.P. Addition (EAXPA)
energy level drain
paralysis
poison
major breath weapon
magic resistance
spell use
swallowing whole
weakness
attacks causing maximum damage greater than 24 singly, or attacks causing maximum damage greater than 30 doubly, or attacks causing maximum damage greater than 36 trebly, or attacks causing maximum damage greater than 42 in all combinations possible in 1 round
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. If an otherwise weak creature has an extraordinary power, multiply the award by 2, 4, 8, or even 10 or more.”
So why does a monster get an xp “bonus” for having a special ability, and then an “addition” to its xp value for an exceptional ability? Gygaxiana? Possibly. But why? Why the distinction in the first place? Why not allow xp bonuses for everything and then double, triple, whatever them in the table? To stick to some unfathomable (OD&D?) formula devised at some point? Perhaps, but it will take a greater mind than mine to figure that out, for my skills at true math are… um, not so good.
Or is it that a monster can have special abilities—period—and that it gets a
bonus to its base xp value for each of them? Then, if for any reason any special ability would be judged “exceptional” (or be an extraordinary power—ye gods, they can’t even be consistent within the same bloody paragraph) an
addition to its xp value is warranted.
Think about it.
Energy level drain? Special attack
Paralysis? Special attack
Poison? Special attack
Major breath weapon? Special attack (can arguably be a special defense?)
Magic resistance? Special defense
Spell use? Special attack (can arguably be a special defense?)
Swallowing whole? Special attack
Weakness? Special attack
Massive damage? --Dammit!
If this would be a thing, it wouldn’t matter at all what
they would write under “Special Defenses” in Appendix E, would it? And under “Special Attacks”, for that matter.
Now, I know that the actual xp values of many, many monsters in Appendix E do not reflect this notion at all. But this is not about whether the xp values in that appendix are correct, it is about what
they were thinking when they made it. And then there’s the cardinal—and for this purpose conveniently modified—rule that one should never consult the xp values in Appendix E when trying to make sense of the xp values in Appendix E.
But unfortunately there’s many, many more problems with this “bonus/addition” notion.
For one, if we would take the EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS table and its appendices as the basic guideline for determining the xp value of a monster, this monster can never get a double SAXPB for anything, because doubling, trebling, quadrupling, etc., xp for abilities can only be done for
exceptional abilities extraordinary powers. Or did they use the term “extraordinary powers” on purpose here to include “special abilities”?
For two, it doesn’t explain why some monsters have massive numbers of SAXPBs while they just have one or a couple of special abilities
(e.g., giant tick).
For three, this is probably gonna involve adding the info in each monster’s entry in the Monster Manual to the equation—which one should anyway, but which I was trying to avoid as long as possible.
For four, and then some.
Still, I guess there’s only one way to find out. Let’s do some monsters in Appendix E in a strict fashion, running two checks:
1) Determine whether a monster has any special abilities
2) Determine whether it has any abilities the EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS table considers to be exceptional.
Yeah. I mean: no.
I mean, there’s definitely gonna be monsters where this
does work
(e.g., the “ape” and the “ape, carnivorous”), but in these cases the well-known phrase “Coincidence? I think yes!” is probably of greater value than the fact that their xp values are “correct”.
And yet, it may just have been what they were thinking when they made
Appendix E… um, the EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS table.
Dammit.
Trebly.
