Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ilgatto" data-source="post: 9795324" data-attributes="member: 86051">Definitely. In fact, if Appendix E has taught me anything, it’s that eyeballing it is the only sane thing one can do when allocating the xp value of any monster. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />Sort of. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the &quot;crush&quot; special attack on p. 85 actually means &quot;constriction&quot;*, which appears to establish &quot;continuous damage&quot; as an actual thing in combination with &quot;blood drain&quot;.And then there's the section on &quot;continuous damage&quot; in B/E Expert (p. X27)—which, infuriatingly, includes &quot;swallow&quot;.*) Point in case being that the MM only has the giant sea snake, the strangle weed, and the trapper being able to “crush” things, with the first just crushing “ships”, the second perhaps being an SAXPB, and the third actually also killing victims in 6 rounds, which I’d say makes the crushing a bit of a symptom not really worth anything in addition to the EAXPA for smothering.As to acid damage, B/E Basic (p. B29) has &quot;Acid&quot; as a &quot;special attack&quot;, and then suggests that the gray ooze is worth a &quot;special ability bonus&quot; because it has an asterisk &quot;after hit dice in the monster description&quot; (p. B22, p. B36).Obviously, Appendix E only confuses things, for it doesn’t even list the anhkheg’s acidic enzymes inflicting 1-4 points of damage per round after it has bitten someone as being worth anything.Personally, I’ve always treated “continuous damage” as just an SAXPB, unless it leads to “(near) instant death without regard for hit points”, in which case it’s an EAXPA.Yeah, that's another another tricky one for many reasons. MM lists the demons' ability to generate darkness as an &quot;ability&quot; on p. 16, and then typically goes on to specify things in each separate entry under what I presume one could call &quot;spell-like abilities&quot;, despite the fact that that may not really have been a thing in 1977.Demogorgon can &quot;cast&quot; continual darkness&quot; as part of his array of &quot;spell-like abilities&quot;. Juiblex &quot;is able to shed&quot; a circle of darkness at will; and can then &quot;cause&quot; fear; &quot;cast&quot; a circle of cold; and regenerate hp per melee round; before he (it?) is &quot;also able to&quot; [followed by a list of &quot;spell-like abilities&quot;].Orcus can &quot;cast&quot; continual darkness as part of its array of &quot;powers&quot;.The succubus can &quot;cause&quot; darkness before the text goes on to list her &quot;spell-like abilities&quot; under &quot;the following feats&quot;.And so on.I think the (2E?) distinction between &quot;spell-like abilities&quot; vs &quot;casting spells&quot; wasn't really a thing at first. Monsters just had certain &quot;powers&quot; allowing them to do things, with the effects of some of these based on &quot;spells&quot;; others on..., um, nothing (Juiblex' circle of cold); and others on magic items, especially fear, gaseous form, and (create) illusion(s) (e.g., &quot;cause fear (as wand)&quot;). That's what gonna make doing the various ways Appendix E deals with (magical) effects generated by monsters such a pain in the proverbial.Also, I guess that whether the demons' ability to generate darkness is a psionic ability or not depends on when psionics became a thing before Eldritch Wizardry was published. Is the mind flayer in The Strategic Review. Vol. 1, No. 1 (1975), the first to mention something akin to psionics? Or is it based on the ubiquitous &quot;telepathy&quot; that starts appearing in Monsters &amp; Treasure--and, once again infuriatingly, is defined as &quot;see ESP&quot; in the DMG Index (p. 235)?In this light, there's an interesting section on &quot;special attacks&quot; in B/E Basic (p. B29), which has &quot;Charm&quot; as a &quot;special attack&quot; in its own right. That seems to make a distinction between a monster using some form of &quot;charm&quot; as a special attack and one actually casting &quot;charm person&quot; or some variant?Even Appendix E sometimes makes distinctions like that in some form or other (e.g., dryad, barbed devil).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ilgatto, post: 9795324, member: 86051"] Definitely. In fact, if Appendix E has taught me anything, it’s that eyeballing it is the only sane thing one can do when allocating the xp value of any monster. :) :cool: Sort of. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the "crush" special attack on p. 85 actually means "constriction"*, which appears to establish "continuous damage" as an actual thing in combination with "blood drain". And then there's the section on "continuous damage" in B/E Expert (p. X27)—which, infuriatingly, includes "swallow". [SIZE=3]*) Point in case being that the MM only has the giant sea snake, the strangle weed, and the trapper being able to “crush” things, with the first just crushing “ships”, the second perhaps being an SAXPB, and the third actually also killing victims in 6 rounds, which I’d say makes the crushing a bit of a symptom not really worth anything in addition to the EAXPA for smothering.[/SIZE] As to acid damage, B/E Basic (p. B29) has "Acid" as a "special attack", and then suggests that the gray ooze is worth a "special ability bonus" because it has an asterisk "after hit dice in the monster description" (p. B22, p. B36). Obviously, Appendix E only confuses things, for it doesn’t even list the anhkheg’s acidic enzymes inflicting 1-4 points of damage per round after it has bitten someone as being worth anything. Personally, I’ve always treated “continuous damage” as just an SAXPB, unless it leads to “(near) instant death without regard for hit points”, in which case it’s an EAXPA. Yeah, that's another another tricky one for many reasons. MM lists the demons' ability to generate darkness as an "ability" on p. 16, and then typically goes on to specify things in each separate entry under what I presume one could call "spell-like abilities", despite the fact that that may not really have been a thing in 1977. Demogorgon can "cast" continual darkness" as part of his array of "spell-like abilities". Juiblex "is able to shed" a circle of darkness at will; and can then "cause" fear; "cast" a circle of cold; and regenerate hp per melee round; before he (it?) is "also able to" [followed by a list of "spell-like abilities"]. Orcus can "cast" continual darkness as part of its array of "powers". The succubus can "cause" darkness before the text goes on to list her "spell-like abilities" under "the following feats". And so on. I think the (2E?) distinction between "spell-like abilities" vs "casting spells" wasn't really a thing at first. Monsters just had certain "powers" allowing them to do things, with the effects of some of these based on "spells"; others on..., um, nothing (Juiblex' circle of cold); and others on magic items, especially fear, gaseous form, and (create) illusion(s) [I](e.g., [/I]"cause fear (as wand)"). That's what gonna make doing the various ways Appendix E deals with (magical) effects generated by monsters such a pain in the proverbial. Also, I guess that whether the demons' ability to generate darkness is a psionic ability or not depends on when psionics became a thing before Eldritch Wizardry was published. Is the mind flayer in The Strategic Review. Vol. 1, No. 1 (1975), the first to mention something akin to psionics? Or is it based on the ubiquitous "telepathy" that starts appearing in Monsters & Treasure--and, once again infuriatingly, is defined as "see ESP" in the DMG Index (p. 235)? In this light, there's an interesting section on "special attacks" in B/E Basic (p. B29), which has "Charm" as a "special attack" in its own right. That seems to make a distinction between a monster using some form of "charm" as a special attack and one actually casting "charm person" or some variant? Even Appendix E sometimes makes distinctions like that in some form or other [I](e.g.,[/I] dryad, barbed devil). [/QUOTE]

Verification