Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ilgatto" data-source="post: 9802143" data-attributes="member: 86051">Doing EAXPAs is not so easy any more, or: Let’s try something else for a bitApart from the fact that trying to making sense of Appendix E has led to a list of “unknowns” that is getting way too long, there’s also the “still to do list”, which is… way too long.And since I’ve sort of run out of “physical special attacks”, and the last couple of efforts are showing ever more signs of “spell use”, “magic”, “magic use”, et al., about to rear their ugly heads—and I want to avoid doing magical abilities for as long as possible—I’ve decided to try and “do” the special defenses first.Special defensesSo what are they? MM, p. 5 says: “SPECIAL DEFENSES are simply what the term implies and are detailed in the same manner as are special attacks.” <s>No they’re not</s> Excellent.Then DMG, p. 85 defines them as: “special defenses (regeneration; hit only by special and/or magic weapons)”, and, crucially, has them as SAXPBs. Still, that seems a bit meager, so let’s CTRL-F the DMG.Oh dear.<s>Stunned</s> Flabbergasted silence………So, am I gonna ignore the many, many other notions that arise from the above so that I don’t have to start all over again? Well, I would if it weren’t for the fact that this piece of Gygaxiana explicitly says that “audial superiority”, “surprise capability”, and “visual superiority” are “other abilities” instead of “special attacks” or “special defenses”.Which is not good at all, because in Appendix E:being able to surprise creatures is typically a "Special Attack"arguably, being able to surprise creatures is also typically a “Special Defense” (e.g., camouflage, invisibility)being able to not be surprised or on only a 1 is typically a “Special Defense”visual superiority is typically a “Special Defense” (giant eagle, sahuagin)audial superiority is, too (sahuagin)detection of creatures through sound or vision is a “Special Defense” for the hell hound…… and a “Special Attack” for the pseudo-dragon, although that may involve some sort of “magical sense”and don’t even ask me about the pungi ray.Um…… and the intellect devourer… and the pseudo-dragonJeez. They won’t even let me close with punchline.This isn’t really going anywhere, is it?Therefore, while I’m pondering this, let’s point out some other interesting aspects of the text.First, “Special attacks and special defenses can’t be dealt with in as much detail as would be desirable in a work of unlimited length”. Yeah, splendid.Second, it suggests that “energy drain (cold)” is not the same as “life level drain”, and therefore “energy level drain”, and that it is a special attack in its own right. Does that mean something for the touch attacks of the lich, the groaning spirit, and the spectre, to name but a few?Third, does the “gaseous discharge” being on par with “missile discharge” mean that the bombardier beetle’s “acid cloud” special attack is an SAXPB? And what about the iron golem’s “poison gas” not being listed as a breath weapon?Fourth, “heat generation”? Why, would that apply to the salamander’s “heat (1-6)” special attack and “heat” special defense? To the remorhaz’ “glowing back heat melts non-magic weapons” special defense?Fifth, “summon/gate” is listed as a special attack, which is bad news in many ways (e.g., Geryon; MM. p. 22). Also, what about the shrieker?Sixth, there is a difference between “spell-like abilities” and “spell use abilities”. While that may obvious, it may be of paramount importance in explaining why and how the various magical abilities of monsters are listed in Appendix E (e.g., night hag, ogre mage, pixie).Seventh, “spell use” is an “ability”, which means that it may have to be read as “the ability to use spells”. While that may seem to be a matter of semantics, there may very well be much more to it.Eighth, does the text suggest that a monster having “metal immunity” adds to its xp value if it is also “hit only by magic weapons”?But let’s try the special defenses anywayHere’s the list, categorized and lightly edited for.., um, clarity—which I’m obviously going to regret no end.[ATTACH=full]422439[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]422440[/ATTACH]Why, that list sucks, doesn’t it?So, first, what does this list tell us about Appendix E? Well, it tells us one thing: INCONSISTENCY!Ye gods! It almost seems like it was done on purpose!YTBL didn’t they at least make the entries consistent? Was Appendix E made by many, many people and then cobbled together by another who just thought “whatevs” when they saw what they had to deal with? Was it made by someone who had to base it on a gazillion rough drafts before someone else edited all of them for the Monster Manual? Was it made by someone who was told “Yup, the system for awarding xp isn’t… that well thought-out, so just work with what you’ve got”? Is it based on various lists (of OD&D origin?) made by many people? Is it all of the above?And second, why is “exceptional intelligence in combat” suddenly a “special defense” while it is not listed as such in DMG, p. 85, EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS?Note to self: Do not mention that “exceptional intelligence in combat” is not listed as a “special defense” in DMG, p. 85, EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE FOR MONSTERS.AnywayWhile this may seem to be a strange question at first, I suppose the main issue with special defenses is whether multiple special immunities count as multiple special defenses, or whether all of them count as a single special defense for each monster. Since it is impossible to glean anything from the xp values listed in Appendix E—aside from multiple immunities probably not adding up, which is bad—it seems that the sole clues that we have here are:*) Which it doesn’t bloody get in Appendix E—a-a-a-a-a-a-a-nd that takes me exactly nowhere.Why? Because the “special defenses (regeneration; hit only by special and/or magic weapons)”-thing seems to suggest that there’s a “category” called “special defenses”, with some examples given, just like there’s one for “special attacks”. So would a monster that could “hug” and “drain blood” get 2×SAXPB for two special attacks? Instinctively, yes.So do all special defenses stack like special attacks might? Saying yes to this is gonna be a huge pain in the proverbial, as will become clear from what comes next.ImmunitiesImmunity? Immunities?First of all, the list of “SPECIAL DEFENSES” for random monsters from the lower planes quoted above seems to suggest that said fiends can be immune to multiple things (e.g., say, fire, poison, and weapons, with the latter referring “to creatures hit only by magical weapons of a certain value”), much like Appendix E has the black pudding being immune to cold, lightning, and blows. Sticking to the instinctive notion that multiple special attacks should stack, I’d say that multiple immunities stack, too.Second, that same list has “spell immunity” listed as a “special defense”, which suggests that “immunity to any spell or any number of spells” is a “special defense” in its own right, and therefore worth 1×SAXPB.Excellent.So let’s see how that worksAccording to the above, the fire giant, being “impervious to fire”, gets 1×SAXPB for that.In like fashion, our fiend, which is immune to fire, poison, and weapons (which we’ve made +1 weapons), gets 3×SAXPB for all of that.Spiffing! Let’s try another one!The wight, which has “hit only by silver/magic weapons, limited immunity to magical attacks/poison/paralyzation/sleep/charm” in Appendix E, gets 1×SAXPB for its “immunity to weapons”, and then… um, [skipping the “limited immunity to magical attacks”] 1×SAXPB for its immunity to poison, 1×SAXPB for its immunity to paralysis, and… um, 1×SAXPB for being “immune to any number of spells”.For a grand total of 4×SAXPB, plus whatever SAXPB “limited immunity to magical attacks” may be, unless that refers to the “(…) hold, or cold-based spells” mentioned in the Monster Manual (p. 100), in which case it gets no additional SAXPBs because we’ve already covered “immune to being immune to any number of spells”. Easy!But wait “Immune to cold-based spells”? But doesn’t that make the wight effectively “immune to cold”? And isn’t that worth 1×SAXPB? Or is it just immune to cold of cold and ice storm and the like and will it freeze to death if left outside on a cold winter’s night? Hardly.So that’s 5×SAXPB for the wight, one each for being immune to weapons, poison, paralyzation, and cold, and then one for being “immune to any number of spells”, in this case charm, sleep, hold, or cold-based spells. There, done!But wait, doublySomething doesn’t quite add up. Well, it adds up, but it doesn’t at the same time. For what does the wight getting 2×SAXPB for being “immune to cold” because it is “immune to cold-based spells” mean for the fire giant being “impervious to fire”? Doesn’t that also make the latter “immune to fire-based spells”? Why, yes, it does! So does the fire giant get 2×SAXPB for being “impervious to fire”? I suppose it does.But wait, treblySomething sort of adds up too much. For why does the wight get 4×SAXPB for being immune to weapons, poison, paralyzation, and cold, but just 1×SAXPB for being immune to sleep, charm monster, and hold monster (and poison, the reverse of neutralize poison; and paralyzation, the 3rd-level illusionist spell)?And does this mean that, say, an iron golem, gets just 1×SAXPB for being “immune to most spells”? And then a gazillion other SAXPBs because that also renders it immune to acid-based spells, cold-based spells, electricity-based spells, fire-based spells, gas-based spells, and so on, and so on?And why does a triton get one measly EAXPA (55 whole xp in this case) for being 90% magic resistant while that renders it all but immune to all of the above, and then some?This doesn’t add up at allAll of this sort of makes me lean toward “immunity to one or more non-spell-things” and “immunity to one or more spells” just being 1×SAXPB each, which can be in addition to the SAXPBs for “hit only by special and/or magic weapons” and “regeneration”.However, that feels very, very wrong, for that would value the “impervious to fire” of the fire giant as much as a wight being immune to just about everything.Base the whole lot on the categories on the saving throws table, then?[ATTACH=full]422441[/ATTACH]Naah, that would give the wight a gazillion SAXPBs… as it would the fire giant. So marginal gains at best, if any; a lot of sussing out to do; and final xp values for some monsters that are gonna differ from those given in Appendix E in apocalyptic fashion. As they are going to anyway, thus defeating the purpose of trying to find out what they were thinking when they made Appendix E.Resistances (and better saving throws?)And all that is without even taking into consideration that there’s also such a thing as resistance to things. Granted, there isn’t much of that in Appendix E, but there is the efreeti, which “resists fire”; the spectre, which has “partial magic and spell resistance” (which is actually immunities); and the manes with its “resistant to spells as undead” (which is actually also immunities).Therefore, the subject has to be dealt with.So is “resistance” a form of “immunity”? Not really, because there’s still gonna be some detrimental effect? Is it an SAXPB? Probably. Will it stack with “immunities to one or more effects”? Um… maybe?Also, is a “resistance” on par with saving throw bonuses or “saving as”? Intuitively speaking: probably? Technically speaking: not so much?Will better saving throws stack with resistances? Probably? Will “saving as more hit dice” for monsters with pluses to their hit dice count as “saving as”? Probably?How about grouping everything together with “immunity to one or more effects”?And we’re back where we started.Decision time the secondMagic weapon required to hit is “hit only by special and/or magic weapons”, so SAXPB. Regeneration? SAXPB.…Decision time the thirdI think the time has come to give up on this whole thing.[ATTACH=full]422442[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]422443[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification