5E: Converting Monsters from White Dwarf Magazine for Fifth Edition

[ilgatto]

Well, Dragons are mythic monsters rather than mundane reptiles so don't have to be limited by real-world biology. Considering I've read of dragons with hair, dragons that get pregnant after having "relations" with humans or gods and dragons with more than one head

Heck, the fact a standard D&D dragon has four legs and a pair of wings gives it six fully functional limbs, suggesting that they don't follow tetrapod structural biology.

So I'm not that bothered if they have teeth analogous to canines.

Besides, there are old European pictures of dragons with with canines or canine-like tusks, such as [i]Saint George and the Dragon[/i] by Svitozar Nenyuk or this Medieval Bestiary Dragon (which has some very unreptilian looking paws and and mane, plus a head on the end of its tail. Admittedly there are pictures of dragons with lizard style teeth like this Bestiary Dragon this Verona Miniature.

So maybe some D&D Dragons have "canines" and some don't? Guess it's up to the DM.

Or we could just not bother going into the such detail about what dragon teeth are usable for the manufacture of the magic item.

I agree with the notion that dragons needn't have undifferentiated teeth - indeed, I have never, ever, for a single moment considered that they might have.

Multiple attacks against creatures with less than 1 HD hasn't been a feature of the D&D rules since 3rd edition.

I'd be inclined to give it regular Multiattack with its "broadsword", whatever we end up interpreting that weapon as.

In 5E a fighter gets an Extra Attack at 5th level, so it'd be quite appropriate to have a Dragon Warrior be able to do so. It might as well have the equivalent of some other abilities a 6th level fighter would have, like Fighting Style or Martial Archetype.

I'd love to see the 1E notion of multiple attacks for Fighters honored - even though it could probably be argued that the author may simply have said that dragon warriors attacked as 6th-level Fighters because OD&D.

ok statblocking something now...made them a construct (precedent - flesh golems are organic constructs)...so construe them as made of tooth and scale armour. Just made broadswords do 2d4 (like 1e). Original description has them as non-intelligent, so mindless...so should be immune to psychic damage at least. Came out as CR 4 (??)

Incidentally, of Cadmus' crop of Sown Men, one of the five that survived was called Chthonius...

Construct, Humanoid, Monstrosity, a point could be made for any of these and I admit that I first thought of them as constructs for my 2E conversion way back when. However, Cleon posting the original text upthread and subsequent posts made me realize that there's actually nothing in the text to suggest that they are constructs - except for the sleep/charm/hold immunity, which I have now explained away for myself as being due to non-intelligence.
Therefore: Doesn't making them a Construct make them too powerful?

What were the Jason/Cadmus warriors made of?

Seems like those sewn by Cadmus became real-life men and that those sewn by Jason started killing each other the second threw a pebble at them, which one could consider to be typically human behavior...
However, it doesn't seem like the 5E description of Humanoids is typically meant to include 'warriors born of dragon teeth', so that's a bit of a problem.
The same is probably true from what I understand from the description of Monstrosity.

So I'd say stick with the creature type that results in the least deviations from the abilities of the original.

Perhaps unfortunately so, in light of the Jason/Cadmus warriors and the notion of figurines of wondrous power generating Beasts, that would probably mean Humanoid, but then with the added mindlessness/non-intelligence/single-mindedness?

 

[Casimir Liber]

They are non-intelligent in orginal - mindless and opeying orders...still suggests constructs to me. Like a golem...or sqaarg for that matter.

I like stats in 5e that push players into using different modes of attack. In 5e, Vicious Mockery and Dissonant Whispers are two really commonly used spells, both of which do psychic damage.

The Jason/Cadmus warriors are different as they ended up being intelligent warriors, with five seemingly living long lives..rather like henchmen

 

[ilgatto]

Incidentally, of Cadmus' crop of Sown Men, one of the five that survived was called Chthonius...

Heh. Someone had definitely been brushing up on his classics for One-Eye Canyon. Makes you wonder whether this notion could lead to finding out who the mysterious One-Eye really was...

 

[ilgatto]

their hawk-like face reveal flame-red eyes and a fanged mouth, and their hands are armed with sharp claws

their hawk-like face > faces?
their hawk-like face reveal > reveals?

 

[Cleon]

ok statblocking something now...made them a construct (precedent - flesh golems are organic constructs)...so construe them as made of tooth and scale armour. Just made broadswords do 2d4 (like 1e). Original description has them as non-intelligent, so mindless...so should be immune to psychic damage at least.

I wouldn't give them immunity to psychic damage. A Gelatinous Cube is mindless but that doesn't have psychic damage immunity in 5E. None of the standard SRD Oozes do.

For that matter, I wouldn't make them Constructs and give them most of those other Immunities. Currently leaning towards Monstrosity rather than Humanoid despite their appearance. I like the idea of them being more monstrous in nature than they appear, like a Gladiator Lizard.

Came out as CR 4 (??)

Challenge 4 is too high.

You've set the CR Calculator's Resistance/Immunities flag to Immunities despite it only having one damage immunity and a standard construct's Condition Immunities.

A monster ought only be at Immunities if it has a broad pile of damage immunities or every Condition Immunity under the sun.

Consider the Shield Guardian, which has one damage immunity plus construct condition immunities like that Dragon Warrior draft AND it has regeneration, spell storing, and a Shield Reaction.

With immunities the CR Calculator says it'd be CR 10, but what is it's CR in the Monster Manual and SRD? Challenge 7! That's halfway between its "Resistances flag on" result of CR 8 and the CR 6 it would be with No Resistances/Immunities set.

If you were to use that approach with the Dragon Warrior you've presented it'd come out to Challenge 3 or so.

 

[ilgatto]

The Hit Points 72 (8d8 + 40) are way below the normal 131 to 145 hp range for Challenge 5 although the high AC should help compensate for that. We may want to add some more HD later depending on what the CR Calculator says.

So I've been reading up on converting (WD) monsters to 5E and gave the mouseman a go to see if I could get anywhere. Now I'm having trouble calculating a CR, especially since the tables I've found that are supposed to allow you to do this seem to require you to have a CR in the first place.

You mention a "CR Calculator" upthread. What is that? Is it that idiom for, say, the table in the 5E DMG or is it (much better) a dead-easy-to-use-computer-program-that-allows-you-to-fill-in-some-stats-and-then-hey-presto?

Edit: Only noticed the post above after clicking save. It is some computer program, isn't it? can you point me to it?

 

[Cleon]

So did you not care for the "different AC for different dragons types" approach for the Dragon Warrior?

The Hit Points are a bit low. I'd go for at least 65 like a Bandit Captain (which has HD 10d8+20) if not higher.

CON 20 feels a bit excessive. I'd go for physical stats on par with a Wyrmling Dragon.

Let's see, Gold Wyrmlings have STR 19, DEX 14, CON 17; White Wyrmlings have STR 14, DEX 10, CON 14, so somewhere in that range.

Maybe STR 18, DEX 12, CON 16 and Hit Points 75 (10d8 + 30)?

The original monster was slow, with Speed 6 (the equivalent of 15 ft. or 20 ft. in 5E).

I'm not adverse to giving this conversion Speed 30 ft. rather than the 20 ft. I've got in my rough draft.

A slower-than-the-PCs speed is a deathtrap for a melee combat monster that lacks abilities or circumstances that help it get into close combat.

 

[ilgatto]

So did you not care for the "different AC for different dragons types" approach for the Dragon Warrior?

The Hit Points are a bit low. I'd go for at least 65 like a Bandit Captain (which has HD 10d8+20) if not higher.

CON 20 feels a bit excessive. I'd go for physical stats on par with a Wyrmling Dragon.

Let's see, Gold Wyrmlings have STR 19, DEX 14, CON 17; White Wyrmlings have STR 14, DEX 10, CON 14, so somewhere in that range.

Maybe STR 18, DEX 12, CON 16 and Hit Points 75 (10d8 + 30)?

The original monster was slow, with Speed 6 (the equivalent of 15 ft. or 20 ft. in 5E).

I'm not adverse to giving this conversion Speed 30 ft. rather than the 20 ft. I've got in my rough draft.

A slower-than-the-PCs speed is a deathtrap for a melee combat monster that lacks abilities or circumstances that help it get into close combat.

I think the org MV 6" is due to wearing scale mail in 1E led you to having MV 6" (DMG1, p. 27). Probably doesn't count in 5E so MV as human seems the way to go.

 

[Cleon]

So I've been reading up on converting (WD) monsters to 5E and gave the mouseman a go to see if I could get anywhere. Now I'm having trouble calculating a CR, especially since the tables I've found that are supposed to allow you to do this seem to require you to have a CR in the first place.

You mention a "CR Calculator" upthread. What is that? Is it that idiom for, say, the table in the 5E DMG or is it (much better) a dead-easy-to-use-computer-program-that-allows-you-to-fill-in-some-stats-and-then-hey-presto?

Edit: Only noticed the post above after clicking save. It is some computer program, isn't it? can you point me to it?

We use the one on 5e.tools. Point your browser to "https://5e.tools/crcalculator.html" and just fill in the fields and it automatically pops out an (approximate) Challenge Rating.

The main problem is it only covers a handful of special traits and abilities so you have to guesstimate/adjust the results if your monster has powers that aren't included in its Monster Features checklist.

The tool uses the maths from the 5E Dungeon Master's Guide, but if you put a Monster Manual creature in it the calculator sometimes comes out with a different CR than the official one.

I tend to use Monster Manual comparisons for a "sniff test" and maybe tweak the Challenge up or down a bit if it calculates to a number that feels wrong.

It's not worth worrying about, since CRs were never an exact science. Still, they're more reliable in 4E and 5E than 3E, when Challenge Ratings were all over the place.

 

[ilgatto]

OK thanks!