ilgatto
It takes two to tango
I'll tell my DM!
AD&D 1E XP Value for Monsters?
- Thread starter ilgatto
- Start date
ilgatto
It takes two to tango
Fair enough.
Since I was trying to make sense of the immunities and resistances last, shall we try and see if we can do something with that?
I think one of the biggest problems here is the fact that “magic resistance” is worth an EAXPA.
Take, say, a triton leader with 4 HD (and no "magical ability"), which has MR 90% as its sole “special defense”, and therefore gets +65 xp for one EAXPA.
Compare that to the gelatinous cube (also 4 HD), which has “spell immunity (fear, hold, polymorph, sleep), immune to electricity, immune to paralyzation, resistant to cold”. If all of that would stack (and we consider “spell immunity” as just a single “special defense”), it would get +100 xp for four SAXPBs, while it is actually a lot more vulnerable to spells than the triton leader, even if we would take the MM quote above referring to “spells” literally.
IMO, this doesn’t seem right.
Let me see if I can insert a table here...
Nope, I’ll have to cobble something together again.
So here are the contestants as far as I can see:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
First very quick thought there is that blanket % resistance to all magic should be EA no matter what, while immunities or resistances to certain specific spells or effects or elements should be SA (resistances just one SA no matter how many different things you're resistant to, immunities 1 SA per different immunity except spell immunity 1 SA no matter how many different spells).
Thus for Wraith it might be:
SA - damage reduction (special wpn required to hit)
SA - immune poison
SA - immune cold
SA - immune paralyzation
SA - immune to various spells and their effects
Thus for Wraith it might be:
SA - damage reduction (special wpn required to hit)
SA - immune poison
SA - immune cold
SA - immune paralyzation
SA - immune to various spells and their effects
ilgatto
It takes two to tango
Sorry about the delay, but I've been trying to get my head around a new approach to the phenomenon of "special attacks" and how they are listed in the XPV table in the DMG and Appendix E, which may well have consequences for what, exactly, a "special defense" is, and how it should be rewarded.
Though that hasn't really gotten me anywhere regarding the xp values in Appendix E, it has allowed me to read it in a way that suddenly made a lot more sense to me than it has ever done. Could be me, of course, but I do now believe that maybe they actually were thinking something when they made that Appendix!
Anyway.
So, first, the "damage reduction" in the table I cobbled together refers to a monster suffering less damage from some weapons than usual (in the case of the wraith, that would be 1/2 damage from silver weapons). Because I couldn't upload the full table, I've had to delete most "non-immunities/resistances" from it. So there's no "magic to hits" in it. Mille excuses for that.
Second, I agree that all non-blanket MR resistances should probably be one SAXPB (e.g., damage reduction, resistant to cold, etc.).
Not so sure about always heaping the immunities together in one SAXPB, though, for there's the golems and the rakshasa, which are immune to just about all spells, and which should surely be worth EAXPAs?
And then there's the question of what "immune to cold" means in practice. I'd say that a lot of that depends on whether one rules that, for example, a white dragon's breath weapon, the ice toad's cold blast are "magical effects".
If they are not, then "immune to cold" probably means "immune to spells that inflict cold damage", which would mean that it falls in the "all spell immunities are just an SAXPB" category.
If they are magical effects, then immune to cold should probably be an SAXPB in its own right?
And how does the "freezing" attack of the brown mold fit into all this?
Brain = frozen.
Also, the wraith example does not solve the problem of the triton leader vs the gelatinous cube:
SA - immune to various spells and their effects
SA - immune to electricity
SA - immune to paralyzation
SA - resistant to cold (resistances to certain specific spells or effects or elements)
That still leaves it with +100 xp vs the +65 xp of the triton leader.
I guess a lot will depend on whether one decides that all cold-, fire-, etc., effects worth their salt are actually "magical effects" (breath weapons, undead cold touch, salamder heat touch, whip & flame ttack of the type VI demon). If they are, then the gelatinous cube's "elemental" immunities and resistances could all be heaped together under "immune to various spells and their effects", for:
SA - immune or resistant to various spells and their effects (specific spells or effects or elements)
SA - immune to paralyzation
Which would leave it with +50 xp vs the +65 xp of the triton leader.
In fact, as much as this is more or less suggested in Dragon #89, which, IIRC, even goes further and also heaps immunity to magical attacks (e.g., paralyzation) under "any immunity or resistance". But then, that article also sticks to the "magic resistance as EAXPA rules"-rule.
Should there be some turning point when "many, many immunities" simple become an EAXPA?
Should we treat certain categories of monsters that are immune to a lot as just getting an EAXPA for that?
Undead? Yup, immune to a lot, so EAXPA.
Devils, demons? EAXPA. Magic resistant, you say? Here's another EAXPA!
Any creature with an "alien physiology", such as a gelatinous cube or a black pudding? EAXPA.
Problem here is that that kind of thinking sort of started happening only after 1E.
Hmm... and is that the siren's call of 3E I hear over yonder horizon?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I don't think this matters. Whatever codification this all leads to is probably going to turn Appendix E on its head anyway by boosting the xp value for some creatures and reducing it for others, so if something leads to numbers different than what App-E shows, don't sweat it.
Alien physiology isn't one I'd ever considered, and for me it'd be SAXPB at best and maybe not even that.
The problem with making "many immunities" an EAXPB is that doing so would probably in fact reduce the total xp the creature was worth! If say a 5 HD creature has four different immunities each giving an SA of 40 (so 160 total), converting those to a single EAXPB reduces that bonus to only 75. Maybe it's just me, but somehow that seems counterintuitive.
In cases like this I'd usually want to go with the higher end-result number as it's more reflective of the actual threat/challenge (potentially) posed by the creature.
ilgatto
It takes two to tango
I'd be fine with any final results not corresponding to what Appendix E says, for that is inevitable anyway.
But the problem with the triton vs the gelatinous cube is still that the first gets less xp for its blanket immunity to spells in general than the gelatinous cube gets for being immune to just some of them. Especially because the triton's magic resistance also makes it all but immune to spells that paralyze or use electricity or cold.
Ah. That's a 3E thing I use for 2E xp. Sort of slipped in.
Yeah, it would, in at least some cases. But it would also elevate others above what they are worth now, which is probably a good thing (e.g., the vastly underrated skeletons).The problem with making "many immunities" an EAXPB is that doing so would probably in fact reduce the total xp the creature was worth! If say a 5 HD creature has four different immunities each giving an SA of 40 (so 160 total), converting those to a single EAXPB reduces that bonus to only 75. Maybe it's just me, but somehow that seems counterintuitive.
And it would mean "categorizing monster types", which is probably not the way to go for 1E.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how inserting tables in posts actually works, so I can more easily update progress. Is probably gonna take while, though, for I'm not too... clever with things like that.
ilgatto
It takes two to tango
What was I thinking!?
Because I’m getting the feeling that I’m getting nowhere fast, I’ve started to think that using Appendix E as a starting point to try and find out what they were thinking when they made Appendix E may have been the wrong choice.
Why? Well, for one thing, because it lists “Special Attacks” and “Special Defenses” as being separate things. But are they?
Special attacks? Special defenses? Or special abilities?
Let’s do some delving.
CHAINMAIL, you say?
CHAINMAIL, Appendix D lists the following “special abilities” for monsters:
The way I see it, there are several things pertaining to the “Special Attacks” and “Special Defenses” in Appendix E to be gleaned from this:
1) A monster has “special abilities” rather than “special attacks” and/or “special defenses”. This is interesting because the XPV table on p. 85 in the DMG uses the same term before the footnotes mentions “special attacks” and “special defenses” as separate “special abilities”.
2) The ability to become invisible/hide in terrain (A) is a thing, as is the ability to detect hidden invisible enemies (F).
3) Judging by the monsters that have it, the ability to cause the enemy to check morale (D) might explain why “fear” is sometimes a thing in Appendix E. Though it doesn’t mention the fear aura of dragons…
4) The ability to “assume the shape of and gather like animals” (H) is a “special ability”. In my book, this may explain at least in part why the Monster Manual often treats a monster’s ability to appear as something else as separate from its ability cast spells or use spell-like abilities (e.g., gold dragon).
5) The balrog’s ability to change to flames and immolate by touch (J)—the type VI demon’s “whip & immolate”—may lie at the basis of the elemental’s ability to “burn inflammables”, and perhaps even the salamander’s “heat (1-6)” and “heat”, suggesting that folks are actually set on fire by these attacks. I guess this has become a bit muddled in AD&D because there aren’t really any rules for that.
6) The ability to cause trees to move and fight (K) is a thing.
7) The ability to transport figures of man-weight (L) is a thing
8) The ability to cast fire or similar substances or stones (X) seems to suggest that fireball, hurling rocks, and breath weapons are the same thing “special ability”-wise. While this may seem moot, it does provide a solution for the “minor breath weapons” left after I defined the “major breath weapons.”
I’d say that this lays the groundwork for a number of special abilities that are also mentioned in Appendix E, the XPV table, and the Monster Manual, being: being invisible in one way or another; fear; detecting creatures that cannot readily be seen; paralysis; being a lycanthrope; regeneration; immolation and burning things with fire and/or heat; controlling trees; lifting creatures off the ground; discharging missiles; and fiery breath weapons and similar exhalations.
Exceptional abilities?
Some more delving nets me the following:
Two things:
First, interestingly, this suggests that even an “exceptional ability” is actually a “special ability”.
Second, while I was hoping that this table would explain some of the weirder xp values in Appendix E, it doesn’t.
Special abilities it is
While all of this may have been glaringly obvious from the beginning, I suppose the main takeaway for me is that a monster can have “special abilities”, which can include “special attacks” and “special defenses”.
Which rather takes the sting out of whether a special ability is listed as a “Special Attack” or a “Special Defense” in Appendix E—it’s just a special ability, and therefore worth an SAXPB, or an EAXPA, if the XPV table lists it as such.
What does that mean?
Let’s assume that, according to the XPV table, a monster gets an SAXPB if it has a “special ability”, regardless of whether that is a “special attack” or a “special defense”. Then, if one of these special abilities is “exceptional”, it gets an EAXPA instead, whereby an “exceptional special ability” is one that leads to some “exceptional effect” as it is mentioned in the XPV table.
So, does each “exceptional special ability” have a “base special ability”?
Yeah, not really, with the exception of the cold touch of some undead, and perhaps the breath weapon and the phenomenon of “resistance (and/or immunity) to specific spells”. However, there is no proof for the latter—as there isn’t for the rest of them. However, I may have a point by making a distinction between “d6’s” and “dice” of damage in the massive damage category, for that just might explain some weird EAXPAs some monsters have in the inflicting damage department (e.g., Baluchiterium, giant snapping turtle). But, as I’ve said before, this isn’t about me.
Well, not much
So, all of this doesn’t get me anywhere other than getting rid of not much more than a handful of the “unknowns” in the “Results, expanded and revised” table, such as the camels’ “spitting”, which would be an SAXPB just because it is a “special ability” regardless of whether it’s a missile weapon or not, and the fact that “minor breath weapons” are worth an SAXPB just because they are “special abilities” and not “exceptional” ones. And that is way, way to little.
So what, exactly, are special abilities anyway, or: Let’s do some more digging
I’m afraid this rather means that that there seems to be no pre-AD&D “definitive list” of “special abilities”.
As we can see above, Holmes just repeats what we already know at this point in time.
However, Swords & Spells does shed some light on the subject, among which:
1) There’s a difference between breath weapons that inflict half damage on a saving throw and those that inflict no damage on one
2) The phenomenon of missile weapons is mentioned as a “special attack form”
3) There is such a thing as a “touch weapon” being a “special attack form”
4) And, finally, a “gaze attack” is a “special attack form”, which is actually quite the find.
5) Oh, and interestingly, it gives us an area of effect for a “gaze attack”
Since I’ve been digging in non-AD&D sources, let’s do some more
The B/X Basic Rulebook, p. B29-30, B34, B36, mentions a number of special attacks, being:
Next is the B/X Expert Rulebook
And then there’s the BECMI D&D rules
re blindness: Looks like blindness may originally have been a lot worse than it is in AD&D. Also, it suggests that to hit penalties in darkness is a thing, which may mean that to hit penalties in general may be a thing?
And the BECMI Expert rules
And the BECMI Companion rules
The Dungeon Masters Companion Rulebook, p. 28, lists the following under “Special Attacks” and “Special Defenses”:
All of this is repeated in the BECMI Master DM’s Book.
And the BECMI DM’s Guide to Immortals is just weird.
So what?
The problem with all of the above is that most all of it is based on pre-AD&D sources (CHAINMAIL, OD&D), which sucks when you want to make sense of an appendix made for AD&D monsters. However, I would argue that these sources lie at the basis of said appendix, which makes them relevant. In like fashion, I’d say that B/X and BECMI are also based on these pre-AD&D sources, which can help me in determining what OD&D considered to be special abilities in some form or other.
AD&D sources
So, with that out of the way, I suppose it would only be prudent to list what the various AD&D sources have to say on the matter of “special abilities”, “special attacks”, and “special defenses” (and then some), even if that means repeating myself. So here goes:
That’s a lot of text, so does all of that get me somewhere?
Why, yes.
First, it allows me to make a list of what OD&D, AD&D, B/X, and BECMI consider to be what we shall call “special abilities”, some of which may be “exceptional abilities” in AD&D.
Second, it explains why Appendix E list numerous weird things as “Special Attacks” or “Special Defenses” (e.g., “rear attack 75%” for the blink dog, “noise” for the shrieker).
Third, there was obviously a difference between dragon breath and “other breath weapons”; and between breath weapons that would cause half damage on a saving throw and those that would cause no damage on a saving throw. Not sure what all of that means, but it may have some bearing on the phenomenon of a “major breath weapon”.
Fourth, it suggests that superior senses and a greater chance to surprise are not “special attacks”, “special defenses”, and not even “special abilities”. In fact, Appendix E is the only bit of text I know that list them as such. Well, and Dragon #89, but my little experiment does not allow me to us that as a source, and I suppose it could be argued that article tries to explain Appendix E.
Fifth, there’s more, such as that gaze attacks, touch attacks, gaseous discharges, summoning/gating, immunities, spell immunity, spell use, spell-like abilities, and then some, are all things.
Sixth, it allows me to suggest that an attack only gets an xp value if it does more than inflict “regular damage”, or if it inflicts massive amounts of them. Thus:
an aerial servant has #AT 1, which either allows it to seize (and restrain) its quarry, or in special circumstances, to inflict massive regular damage on its summoner, wherefore it has the “special ability” to inflict massive damage—and perhaps the “special ability to seize and restrain” (it’s complicated)
a soldier ant has #AT 2, one of which injects poison, wherefore it has the “special ability” to inflict poison damage
a carrion crawler has #AT 8, all of which cause paralysis, wherefore it has the “special ability” to paralyze
a ghoul has #AT 3, all which inflict regular damage, and two of which can paralyze, wherefore it has the “special ability” to paralyze
a lich has #AT 1, which inflicts cold damage (drains energy) and can paralyze, wherefore it has two “special abilities”: to inflict cold damage, and to paralyze, each by touch
Appendix E, or: The main takeaway
Cutting this short, all of this means that Appendix E does not list “Special Attacks” and “Specials Defenses” because they are worth xp, but because it tries to inform the reader of the options/advantages a monster has in combat, offense- and defense-wise.
Though that may have been obvious to just about anyone else but me, this means that a “special attack” or “special defense” listed as such in Appendix E need not necessarily be worth any xp.
Which I will get toonce I get my head around all of it if I ever get my head around all of it.
Because I’m getting the feeling that I’m getting nowhere fast, I’ve started to think that using Appendix E as a starting point to try and find out what they were thinking when they made Appendix E may have been the wrong choice.
Why? Well, for one thing, because it lists “Special Attacks” and “Special Defenses” as being separate things. But are they?
Special attacks? Special defenses? Or special abilities?
Let’s do some delving.
CHAINMAIL, you say?
CHAINMAIL, Appendix D lists the following “special abilities” for monsters:
The way I see it, there are several things pertaining to the “Special Attacks” and “Special Defenses” in Appendix E to be gleaned from this:
1) A monster has “special abilities” rather than “special attacks” and/or “special defenses”. This is interesting because the XPV table on p. 85 in the DMG uses the same term before the footnotes mentions “special attacks” and “special defenses” as separate “special abilities”.
2) The ability to become invisible/hide in terrain (A) is a thing, as is the ability to detect hidden invisible enemies (F).
3) Judging by the monsters that have it, the ability to cause the enemy to check morale (D) might explain why “fear” is sometimes a thing in Appendix E. Though it doesn’t mention the fear aura of dragons…
4) The ability to “assume the shape of and gather like animals” (H) is a “special ability”. In my book, this may explain at least in part why the Monster Manual often treats a monster’s ability to appear as something else as separate from its ability cast spells or use spell-like abilities (e.g., gold dragon).
5) The balrog’s ability to change to flames and immolate by touch (J)—the type VI demon’s “whip & immolate”—may lie at the basis of the elemental’s ability to “burn inflammables”, and perhaps even the salamander’s “heat (1-6)” and “heat”, suggesting that folks are actually set on fire by these attacks. I guess this has become a bit muddled in AD&D because there aren’t really any rules for that.
6) The ability to cause trees to move and fight (K) is a thing.
7) The ability to transport figures of man-weight (L) is a thing
8) The ability to cast fire or similar substances or stones (X) seems to suggest that fireball, hurling rocks, and breath weapons are the same thing “special ability”-wise. While this may seem moot, it does provide a solution for the “minor breath weapons” left after I defined the “major breath weapons.”
I’d say that this lays the groundwork for a number of special abilities that are also mentioned in Appendix E, the XPV table, and the Monster Manual, being: being invisible in one way or another; fear; detecting creatures that cannot readily be seen; paralysis; being a lycanthrope; regeneration; immolation and burning things with fire and/or heat; controlling trees; lifting creatures off the ground; discharging missiles; and fiery breath weapons and similar exhalations.
Exceptional abilities?
Some more delving nets me the following:
Which is followed by this table:
Two things:
First, interestingly, this suggests that even an “exceptional ability” is actually a “special ability”.
Second, while I was hoping that this table would explain some of the weirder xp values in Appendix E, it doesn’t.
Special abilities it is
While all of this may have been glaringly obvious from the beginning, I suppose the main takeaway for me is that a monster can have “special abilities”, which can include “special attacks” and “special defenses”.
Which rather takes the sting out of whether a special ability is listed as a “Special Attack” or a “Special Defense” in Appendix E—it’s just a special ability, and therefore worth an SAXPB, or an EAXPA, if the XPV table lists it as such.
What does that mean?
Let’s assume that, according to the XPV table, a monster gets an SAXPB if it has a “special ability”, regardless of whether that is a “special attack” or a “special defense”. Then, if one of these special abilities is “exceptional”, it gets an EAXPA instead, whereby an “exceptional special ability” is one that leads to some “exceptional effect” as it is mentioned in the XPV table.
So, does each “exceptional special ability” have a “base special ability”?
Yeah, not really, with the exception of the cold touch of some undead, and perhaps the breath weapon and the phenomenon of “resistance (and/or immunity) to specific spells”. However, there is no proof for the latter—as there isn’t for the rest of them. However, I may have a point by making a distinction between “d6’s” and “dice” of damage in the massive damage category, for that just might explain some weird EAXPAs some monsters have in the inflicting damage department (e.g., Baluchiterium, giant snapping turtle). But, as I’ve said before, this isn’t about me.
Well, not much
So, all of this doesn’t get me anywhere other than getting rid of not much more than a handful of the “unknowns” in the “Results, expanded and revised” table, such as the camels’ “spitting”, which would be an SAXPB just because it is a “special ability” regardless of whether it’s a missile weapon or not, and the fact that “minor breath weapons” are worth an SAXPB just because they are “special abilities” and not “exceptional” ones. And that is way, way to little.
So what, exactly, are special abilities anyway, or: Let’s do some more digging
I’m afraid this rather means that that there seems to be no pre-AD&D “definitive list” of “special abilities”.
As we can see above, Holmes just repeats what we already know at this point in time.
However, Swords & Spells does shed some light on the subject, among which:
1) There’s a difference between breath weapons that inflict half damage on a saving throw and those that inflict no damage on one
2) The phenomenon of missile weapons is mentioned as a “special attack form”
3) There is such a thing as a “touch weapon” being a “special attack form”
4) And, finally, a “gaze attack” is a “special attack form”, which is actually quite the find.
5) Oh, and interestingly, it gives us an area of effect for a “gaze attack”
Since I’ve been digging in non-AD&D sources, let’s do some more
The B/X Basic Rulebook, p. B29-30, B34, B36, mentions a number of special attacks, being:
Next is the B/X Expert Rulebook
And then there’s the BECMI D&D rules
re blindness: Looks like blindness may originally have been a lot worse than it is in AD&D. Also, it suggests that to hit penalties in darkness is a thing, which may mean that to hit penalties in general may be a thing?
And the BECMI Expert rules
And the BECMI Companion rules
The Dungeon Masters Companion Rulebook, p. 28, lists the following under “Special Attacks” and “Special Defenses”:
All of this is repeated in the BECMI Master DM’s Book.
And the BECMI DM’s Guide to Immortals is just weird.
So what?
The problem with all of the above is that most all of it is based on pre-AD&D sources (CHAINMAIL, OD&D), which sucks when you want to make sense of an appendix made for AD&D monsters. However, I would argue that these sources lie at the basis of said appendix, which makes them relevant. In like fashion, I’d say that B/X and BECMI are also based on these pre-AD&D sources, which can help me in determining what OD&D considered to be special abilities in some form or other.
AD&D sources
So, with that out of the way, I suppose it would only be prudent to list what the various AD&D sources have to say on the matter of “special abilities”, “special attacks”, and “special defenses” (and then some), even if that means repeating myself. So here goes:
That’s a lot of text, so does all of that get me somewhere?
Why, yes.
First, it allows me to make a list of what OD&D, AD&D, B/X, and BECMI consider to be what we shall call “special abilities”, some of which may be “exceptional abilities” in AD&D.
Second, it explains why Appendix E list numerous weird things as “Special Attacks” or “Special Defenses” (e.g., “rear attack 75%” for the blink dog, “noise” for the shrieker).
Third, there was obviously a difference between dragon breath and “other breath weapons”; and between breath weapons that would cause half damage on a saving throw and those that would cause no damage on a saving throw. Not sure what all of that means, but it may have some bearing on the phenomenon of a “major breath weapon”.
Fourth, it suggests that superior senses and a greater chance to surprise are not “special attacks”, “special defenses”, and not even “special abilities”. In fact, Appendix E is the only bit of text I know that list them as such. Well, and Dragon #89, but my little experiment does not allow me to us that as a source, and I suppose it could be argued that article tries to explain Appendix E.
Fifth, there’s more, such as that gaze attacks, touch attacks, gaseous discharges, summoning/gating, immunities, spell immunity, spell use, spell-like abilities, and then some, are all things.
Sixth, it allows me to suggest that an attack only gets an xp value if it does more than inflict “regular damage”, or if it inflicts massive amounts of them. Thus:
an aerial servant has #AT 1, which either allows it to seize (and restrain) its quarry, or in special circumstances, to inflict massive regular damage on its summoner, wherefore it has the “special ability” to inflict massive damage—and perhaps the “special ability to seize and restrain” (it’s complicated)
a soldier ant has #AT 2, one of which injects poison, wherefore it has the “special ability” to inflict poison damage
a carrion crawler has #AT 8, all of which cause paralysis, wherefore it has the “special ability” to paralyze
a ghoul has #AT 3, all which inflict regular damage, and two of which can paralyze, wherefore it has the “special ability” to paralyze
a lich has #AT 1, which inflicts cold damage (drains energy) and can paralyze, wherefore it has two “special abilities”: to inflict cold damage, and to paralyze, each by touch
Appendix E, or: The main takeaway
Cutting this short, all of this means that Appendix E does not list “Special Attacks” and “Specials Defenses” because they are worth xp, but because it tries to inform the reader of the options/advantages a monster has in combat, offense- and defense-wise.
Though that may have been obvious to just about anyone else but me, this means that a “special attack” or “special defense” listed as such in Appendix E need not necessarily be worth any xp.
Which I will get to
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
I'm looking at the BECMI Basic Dungeon Masters Rulebook, page 23, and it says Blindness imposes a -4 penalty to hit, slows movement to 1/3 normal or 2/3 normal if led, and gives enemies +4 to hit you.
Remember that AD&D predates BECMI by several years.
To the best of my recollection blindness or being in pitch darkness in OD&D doesn't have a defined penalty. It's left up to DM discretion.
In AD&D being unable to see your target (full darkness, blindness, or them being invisible) imposes a -4 to hit (1979 DMG page 60, page 70).
In B/X being blinded means completely unable to attack (see Light spell, page B15). Being "partially blinded" gives a -4 (see Destroying Vampires, page X42).
ilgatto
It takes two to tango
Heh. Correct. That was me thinking of 2E being blinded vs 1E being blinded when wondering whether imposing to hit penalties would be worth xp. The whole thing is becoming a bit complicated at the moment.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (23) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
