• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Cleon

Legend
So I guess that means that INT must be at least 3 for a creature to speak? So would that mean that the white DWs wouldn't be able to speak as per the DWs' Intelligence scores in your table and that the others could if we'd make them able to communicate? That seems odd.

I don't believe there are any hard rules about what monsters can speak Languages, it's just an inference I've made from the range of INT a Player Character can have and the INT scores of Language-speaking published monsters I've compared.

Of course, a creature that can understand but not speak a particular language may simply be physically incapable of uttering it. The aforementioned Giant Elk might completely comprehend the Common, Elvish, and Sylvan tongues but it's only able to make moose calls.

If we want the Dragon Warriors to speak Common and Draconic, it seems more prudent to bump up their INT a bit, and I feel another +2 is enough to justify speech.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ilgatto

How inconvenient
I don't believe there are any hard rules about what monsters can speak Languages, it's just an inference I've made from the range of INT a Player Character can have and the INT scores of Language-speaking published monsters I've compared.

Of course, a creature that can understand but not speak a particular language may simply be physically incapable of uttering it. The aforementioned Giant Elk might completely comprehend the Common, Elvish, and Sylvan tongues but it's only able to make moose calls.

If we want the Dragon Warriors to speak Common and Draconic, it seems more prudent to bump up their INT a bit, and I feel another +2 is enough to justify speech.
I suppose the only reason for them not speaking would be if they were Constructs, which it definitely looks like they're not going to be. I also rather like them speaking in some form or other, as noted.

re Giant Elk speaking/not speaking:

5E MM:
"The majestic giant elk is rare to the point that its appearance is often taken as a foreshadowing of an important event, such as the birth of a king. Legends tell of gods that take the form of giant elk when visiting the Material Plane. Many cultures therefore believe that to hunt these creatures is to invite divine wrath."
There's obviously some divine connection. Perhaps from some 3E/4E native-American-myth-turned-West-European-woodland-myth?
 

Cleon

Legend
I suppose the only reason for them not speaking would be if they were Constructs, which it definitely looks like they're not going to be. I also rather like them speaking in some form or other, as noted.

I'll increase the Dragon Warriors' INT scores then.

…eventually.
 


Cleon

Legend
Brace or Riposte would be my suggestions. Give PCs a bit of a fright...

Let's see, those are Battle Master abilities I believe…

…and 5Esrd.com doesn't have the Battle Master…

…so I turned to a Wiki for the Battle Master Maneuvers.

Hmm, well I can see a few issues.

Firstly, if it isn't in 5Esrd.com that suggests the Battle Master is not SRD, so I'd rather avoid using it in favour of an SRD ability.

Secondly, those both use superiority dice so we'd have to either add a superiority dice mechanism to the Dragon Warriors or have it work like superiority but be a bit simpler. Having them be Recharge would be the easiest approach.

Thirdly, both of those abilities do damage and the DPR ranges of the Dragon Warriors I've statted are very narrow. Only a few more points of damage can nudge a Warrior up a Challenge Rating and I (a) kind of like the CRs they're at and (b) would have to refigure all the Warriors so their statistics match their new CRs without messing up the order.

If you want a Battle Master modelled ability, a non-damaging one would be better.

So something like Menacing Attack or Pushing Attack might work, but neither of those are Reactions.

Hmm… I wouldn't mind something like Menacing Attack as a Bonus Action though. It'd thematically tie into Dragon Fear.

Another idea I've had is to give them a Riposte Reaction that allows them to use their Flashing Blade Bonus Action to attack a creature that makes a melee attack against them, possibly with advantage if the creature missed the Dragon Warrior.

As listed, that option would only be open to the Bronze, Gold and Silver Warriors since they're the only Dragon Warriors with Flashing Blade (I added it so those DWs have three melee attacks per round without them all being in Multiattack).

We could get around that by only granting the Bronze, Gold and Silver Multiattack and giving ALL Dragon Warriors Flashing Blade but I don't much care for the idea of a DW without Multiattack.

…and I just noticed the Dragon Warriors' current draft calls that Bonus Action extra attack Flashing Steel not Flashing Blade. I remember going back and forth on what to call it multiple times.

Since the sword is made out dragonscales rather than metal I prefer Blade, plus it's got a nicer ring to it.
 



Cleon

Legend
Another idea I've had is to give them a Riposte Reaction that allows them to use their Flashing Blade Bonus Action to attack a creature that makes a melee attack against them, possibly with advantage if the creature missed the Dragon Warrior.

Or maybe just if it misses the attack, like regular Riposte?

Something like…

Riposte. If an opponent misses the dragon warrior with a melee attack, the dragon warrior can use its reaction to perform a action or bonus action that makes a longsword attack against that opponent. This action or bonus action count as being used on the dragon warrior's next turn. The dragon warrior can use Multiattack to riposte, in which case the Multiattack's first melee attack occurs on riposte reaction and the Multiattack's remaining melee attacks occur on the dragon warrior's next turn.​

The advantage of the above is that the total number of attacks is conserved so the DPR stays the same and I don't have to recalculate anything!
 


Cleon

Legend
Interesting. But do you still want to call it riposte if it differs from the official maneouvre...

I thought about calling if Flashing Riposte to play off the Flashing Blade bonus attack (maybe with a special bonus for a Flashing Blade Riposte?), but didn't do it in the end. Just wondered about calling it Counterstrike instead.

Will probably change the name in the next draft. I'm not that happy with the first version, since.

(a) There should be a requirement for the DW to have a readied melee weapon and be able to see its attacker to use (whatever I call it).

(b) I don't like the official Riposte only working when the DW's attacker misses. A riposte is a form of parry-counterattack. The fencer's blade is trying to deflect their opponent's blade with their own and then strike their opponent in a single motion. As written, an AC 18 Battle Master in full plate is way more likely to Riposte than if it were naked with AC 10. That makes no sense.

I would prefer if Riposting gives a creature a "Riposte AC" it uses against the riposted attack if that's higher than its actual AC. So in the above scenario, if a combatant had Riposte AC 15 then the riposted attack would need to hit AC 18 if they're plate mail (AC 18) or AC 15 if they're naked (AC 10).

The Riposte AC could be a fixed number based on proficiency and ability scores, but I would prefer it to be being equal to the attack roll of the defender's melee weapon. For example, a bronze dragon warrior with AC 18 and +6 to hit would roll 1d20+6 for its riposte melee attack, for an attack roll and riposte AC from 7 to 26. So if the opponent rolled 21, they would hit the dragon warrior's AC 18, but if the bronze rolled 22 or higher on their 1d20+6 roll the riposted attack would be parried successfully and miss. The bronze dragon warrior will hit the opponent with their own melee attack if they beat its AC as normal.

If BOTH opponents are using riposte, whichever rolls higher and beats the target's AC will score a hit. If both roll the same to hit number then they hit each other simultaneously, target AC permitting.

Hmm… maybe instead of missing, a successful riposte reduces the damage of the attacker's melee weapon by the dragon warrior's own damage roll? That would mean that if a DW parried, say an elephant's 4d10+6 gore, they would likely only deflect part of the damage.

I also wondered about putting a Recharge on Riposte that gets higher as the DW's rank increases (i.e. 5-6 for CR 3, 4-6 for CR 4, automatic for CR 5) but decided that seems overly complicated even for me.

Finally, I mentioned fancying Flashing Blade being better than a regular longsword attack with Riposte, and am wondering about adding the equivalent of a "superiority dice" rather than a straight bonus like in Parry.

If the Dragon Warrior adds 1d4 to the attack roll with Flashing Blade, that'd give Bronze an 8 to 30 range (1d20+6+1d4) and Gold a 9 to 31 (1d20+7+1d4). The average of those rolls is 19 and 20, so its riposting AC would be better than its natural AC (Bronze 18, Silver 19, Gold 20) less than half the time.

Hmm, I like most of the above, so will write up a few new drafts of "Riposte" when I can find the time and inspiration.

Incidentally, I've used that attack roll=AC idea for parries and ripostes in multiple unpublished homebrews and some of the 3E monster conversions on this forum. For example, the Seven Sword Reaper has a Scythe Parry ability that allows it to use its attack roll to parry melee and ranged weapons. It's not something I've just made up.
 

Remove ads

Top