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: 9796612" data-attributes="member: 86051">Possibly. But DMG, p. 85 says that double values should only be awarded in case of "otherwise weak monsters", which complicates things.Though I’m not aware of DMG, MM, or PHB actually defining what a “spell-like ability” is, distinguishing between spell-like abilities in general and use of actual spells is not a bad thought at all, and DMG, p. 195, actually does that with:For one, distinguishing between them could go some way to explaining the various ways Appendix E describes “magical” special attacks and defenses (e.g., “magic use”; “spell use” and “gaze charms” for the spirit naga; “sleep magic” and “spell use” for the night hag; “spell use” and “magic” for the pixie; “charm person” and “magic use” for the dryad).So that would make it:use of minor (basically defensive) spells = SAXPBspell use = EAXPA“spell-like ability” = EAXPAAlthough there’s probably gonna be problems with this—as usual—it is probably the best basis to build on when the subject of xp for magical special attacks and defenses comes up.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">So would this make “spell use” the “ability to cast spells like a magic-user, cleric, etc.”?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And would this make “use of minor (basically defensive) spells” the “ability to cast spells like a magic-user, cleric, etc., but then only of a minor, basically defensive nature”? Meaning that one would have to take each monster/NPC, see what spells it/he/she can cast, and then allocate an xp value? Probably.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">*And would this separate “magical effects that do not exactly emulate known spells” from “spell-like abilities that do”, and therefore worth (at least) 1×EAXPA each?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">* And would this mean lots of EAXPAs for monsters having lots of “spell-like abilities” that generate effects worth EAXPAs?</li> </ul>But maybe that’s mere peanuts in comparison to:1) Having to deal with the problem of determining whether a “spell-like ability” generates a major or a minor effect; and2) The major advantage of it eliminating the huge problems I thought there were gonna be with the wording of texts in the various monster entries in the MM.For example,So, making having any “spell-like ability” worth (at least) 1×EAXPA would neatly solve the problem of texts using “use”, “cast”, “powers”, “abilities”, “create a wall of fire” (bone devil), and so on, whenever they do—even in the same sentence.Uses powers? Casts continual darkness (even tough that’s an “ability”)? Casts clairvoy[ance]? Uses clairaudience? Casts a feeblemind spell (“spell use”)? Turns sticks to snakes?All of it would just say EAXPA.Yes. Me gusta this a lot.As to the "charm" problem, I've just found this, in DMG, p. 65:Which strengthens the case for EAXPAs for "spell-like abilities" even more.EDIT: (I hate bullet points)</blockquote>

Verification