Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ilgatto" data-source="post: 9796057" data-attributes="member: 86051">Absolutely. The notion of restraint being a thing does pop up when you’re trying to deal with crush/constriction… and the “continuing constriction” of the giant constrictor snake. I’ve thought a lot about that, and arguably the main problem here seems to be that there should probably be a difference between restraint that inflicts damage (as the “crush” special attack seems to suggest) and restraint that doesn’t. Making that distinction gets rid of a lot of monsters, including those whose restraining leads to “(near) instant death without regard for hit points”.As far as I can see, that leaves us with a meager:Aerial servant; nothing in Appendix E; seizes its quarry to take it back to the priest who summoned itBone devil: “bone hook”; snares folks so that it will attack them with its tail nextErinyes: “rope of entanglement”Giant frog: “tongue”; draws prey to its mouth; maximum biting damage in the next round unless tongue is hit; “hug”-like, but then with a chance to break free before the damage is inflicted?Mimics: “glue”; Appendix E suggests EAXPA?Minotaur lizard: “bite and hold on 20”; is this “hug”-like as well, because the beast “is certain to bite […] again” (MM)? Is that an automatic hit?Roper: nothing in Appendix E; draws “weakened prey into toothy maw where it is quickly devoured” (MM)”. Is that an automatic kill? Not unlikely because it appeared The Strategic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, in a time when DMs would probably just say: “Yeah, so you weren’t able to free yourself because you didn’t have the strength and now you’ve been dragged to its mouth and now it has devoured you. Next.”?Giant spider: “webs”; more or less as web spell; has an “area of effect” if that would important; Appendix E has 3×EAXPA but that can easily be for its poison alonePhase spider: “webs”; likely as per the webs of the giant spider; Appendix E has 4×SAXPB and 2×EAXPA, for…, umA couple of aquatic monsters that use nets, such as the locathah, merman, and sahuagin (and aquatic elf). Appendix E even has “weapons” as a “Special Attack” for the sahuagin, whatever that may meanAnd possibly:Giant eagle: nothing in Appendix E; can seize creatures and carry them offPteranodon: nothing in Appendix E; seizes prey and then drops it to the ground from high-up; Appendix E may still suggest SAXPBRoc: nothing in Appendix E; seizes creatures and carries them off to its lairSo are these to be awarded an SAXPB just like monsters that constrict/entangle/and variants and inflict damage, (near) lethal or not? Probably, if only because Appendix E has at least some of them as a “Special Attack”?If so, is a “restraint” category going to include the “hug” if that would be on par with crush/constriction? As far as I know, there isn’t any info on whether a hug is a one-shot or a lasting affair. Also, why does the table in DMG, p. 85, have the “hug” and the “crush” as separate examples for “special attacks”?So far, I’ve defined “blood drain” as “continuous damage through some physical act”; “hug” as “additional damage in the same round through some physical act, without an additional to hit roll”; and “crush” (constriction) as “additional, and continuous, damage through some physical act, without an additional to hit roll”.But that’s just me—and therefore arbitrary. So maybe those definitions should change?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" />Heh. Same here. But I was hoping there was a possibility that B/E just might clarify some things. I'm leaning towards the whole "charm" thing being a magical effect that isn't so minor nor basically defensive, wherefore it would more akin to the category "spell use". But the whole "xp values of magical effects" is a different thing altogether.A "continuous damage" category is an intriguing notion in its own right, for it would also nicely include some damaging effects that are not necessarily the direct result of some "physical act" (e.g., acid, and indeed, the heat auras, as opposed to constriction). So I've been keeping an eye on that while I'm still trying to get to the bottom of "physical attack effects" first.That distinction hasn't yet really gotten me anywhere, though. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😟" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61f.png" title="Worried face    :worried:" data-shortname=":worried:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification