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

[ilgatto]

Somehow can't get the whole message to quote (maybe a special feature you get for clocking a century?), but here goes:

": if/If"

It's OK either way, and whether to go uppercase or lowercase is more a matter of personal preference (or a style guide if you're writing for an organization).

Strangely free-for-all, this English. I've also understood that you can cut off words at the end of sent-
ences in whatever way you like!

That said, I should really be consistent and prefer uppercase for both, and the Chicago Manual of Style appears to agree with me.

Bit off-topic, but so what would you do with, say: "List: 1 potion; 2 rings; etc."?
Is that gonna be "List: 1 Potion; 2 rings; etc."?
Or does the "1" preclude the use of the capital-P?
Or is it personal preference again?

As for the "Gray" issue, that's how the original monster spelled it (...)

WHAT!?

[checking][/unchecking]

and D&D has US publications with it, such as the Gray Ooze, so I wouldn't change them all to Grey.

Erm... the original calls them "grey" but I agree that there's little point in sticking to it.

Triple Dang it…

 

[ilgatto]

Ok to here

As far as finishing that issue - micemen (micefolk I guess) are really vanilla as is..cyclops I quite like but too close to cyclops that already exist and would require some explanation/change to differentiate.

Dragon Warriors are interesting - as a monster, trap or one-shot magic item so I think they have legs

Although I agree that the dragon warriors are quite interesting, I do have to say that I was rather looking forward to how tall you guys would make the micemen (name and pic suggest they are a lot smaller than brownies imho) - but especially what you would do with the cyclops because Arimaspi.

Still, staying close to the cyclopes, I guess (Dragon's teeth).

 

[Cleon]

Ok to here

Quadruple Darn it, I've noticed another bit of poor grammar!

"The creature is sculpted in the shape of naked sexless figure" should be "a naked sexless figure."

While I'm at it, I think I'll change:

Gray sqaargs were created by a long extinct dwarf culture. The objects and writings these dwarves left include unmistakable proof they were evil creatures, who scholars speculate might be ancestors or relatives of the Duergar. Despite their creators' malevolence, the gray sqaargs are protective creatures designed to guard the territory and property of the dwarves by capturing intruders nonlethally.​

to:

The gray sqaargs were created by a long extinct dwarf culture. Objects and writings left by these dwarves include unmistakable proof they were evil creatures, who scholars speculate might be ancestors or relatives of the Duergar. Despite their creators' malevolence, gray sqaargs are protective creatures designed to guard territory and property by capturing intruders nonlethally.​

I think that will do.

 

[Cleon]

Bit off-topic, but so what would you do with, say: "List: 1 potion; 2 rings; etc."?
Is that gonna be "List: 1 Potion; 2 rings; etc."?
Or does the "1" preclude the use of the capital-P?
Or is it personal preference again?

I'd argue it's "List: 1 potion" since "1" is the first word, not "potion".

Also, it's a list. Offhand, lists tend to be all lowercase after the colon (i.e. List: potion of pedantry, 2 rings of niggling, etc." or every entry in the list has some consistent form of capitalisation (i.e. List: Potion of Pedantry; 2 Gold Rings worth 50 gp each; a Scroll of the spell Fog Grammar).

If only the first word after the colon is capitalized, that's usually an indication that the Capitalized word is the start of a complete and separate sentence.

That's possible with a List but I don't recall when I last saw it.

Or it's a matter of personal preference, like Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’​

​

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’​

​

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”​

Just substitute "colon" for "word".

Erm... the original calls them "grey" but I agree that there's little point in sticking to it.

Not quite, the original was in 1976's "White Box" Dungeon & Dragons and named Gray Ooze. It was the 1976's Eldritch Wizardry that used Grey Ooze, and D&D went back to Gray Ooze in subsequent publications.

Apart from Eldritch Wizardry (1976), the only other official source I could find that calls them Grey Ooze is PHBR5 - Complete Psionics Handbook (1991).

 

[Cleon]

Dragon Warriors are interesting - as a monster, trap or one-shot magic item so I think they have legs

Let's go for those then.

 

[ilgatto]

I'd argue it's "List: 1 potion" since "1" is the first word, not "potion".

Also, it's a list. Offhand, lists tend to be all lowercase after the colon (i.e. List: potion of pedantry, 2 rings of niggling, etc." or every entry in the list has some consistent form of capitalisation (i.e. List: Potion of Pedantry; 2 Gold Rings worth 50 gp each; a Scroll of the spell Fog Grammar). If only the first word after the colon is capitalized, that's usually an indication that the Capitalized word is the start of a complete and separate sentence.

Ah, right, thanx. That clarifies things.
Interesting choice of items, btw...

Or it's a matter of personal preference, like Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’​

​

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’​

​

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”​

Just substitute "colon" for "word".

Wise words from his Exalted Eggcellency (not mine, EX2).

Not quite, the original was in 1976's "White Box" Dungeon & Dragons and named Gray Ooze. It was the 1976's Eldritch Wizardry that used Grey Ooze, and D&D went back to Gray Ooze in subsequent publications.

Apart from Eldritch Wizardry (1976), the only other official source I could find that calls them Grey Ooze is PHBR5 - Complete Psionics Handbook (1991).

As for the "Gray" issue, that's how the original monster spelled it and D&D has US publications with it, such as the Gray Ooze, so I wouldn't change them all to Grey.

Ah, yes. I thought you were referring to the sqaarg with "original monster" above.

Anyway. Nuff said about the sqaarg - I admit it, I can't find anything to make you go quintuple dang.

 

[Cleon]

Interesting choice of items, btw...

Interesting? But I omitted the crown of exponentially increasing value and fascinating jewel.

 

[Cleon]

Anyhow, Dragon Warriors. Here's the original:

Dragon Warriors
by Tony Wilson

No. appearing:	One per tooth (normally 1–4)
Armour class:	See below
Movement:	6″
Hit Dice:	5D8+5
Treasure:	Nil
Attack:	By weapon type
Alignment:	Neutral
Intelligence:	Non-
Monstermark:	Variable (suggest level IX in 12 levels)

Dragon warriors are created by crushing the teeth of a dragon and saying its name aloud. (An identify spell cast on a tooth will determine the dragon’s name if this is not already known.) One warrior appears for each tooth.
 The warriors cannot speak but will obey the commands of their creator unfailingly until they are either slain or dispelled. Dragon warriors last for only as many turns as the dragon whose teeth they came from had hit points per die (1–8 turns). They have a strength of 18 (plus 1 to hit, plus 2 on damage) and normally use broad swords, attacking as 6th level fighters.
 Naturally they are totally immune to attacks based on their “parent” dragon’s breath weapon(s) (i.e. a red dragon warrior would be immune to all fire based attacks) as well as sleep, charm and hold spells. The warriors are clad in exceptionally complete scale armour, colour and armour class equating with that of their “parent” dragon. Note that hit points lost by a dragon warrior cannot be restored by means of a spell or a potion. Furthermore the warriors possess infravision.
 When killed or dispelled, at the conclusion of their “time”, they and their armour and weapons “disintegrate” into dust. Note, only the dragons four canine teeth are suitable for turning into warriors.
 The teeth can also be used for forming a trap, by first saying the dragon’s name, and not crushing the tooth. The warrior will then appear and attack the first person/creature to stand on, break or otherwise harm the tooth.​

Originally appeared in White Dwarf #21 (“Fiend Factory - One-Eye Canyon” by Albie Fiore, October/November 1980).

 

[ilgatto]

Well, I can't help you with any 5E rules coz I know virtually nothing of anything beyond 2E.

So what I can say may or may not be relevant to 5E, but here goes.

First, I've always found the author's suggestion that the canines of any dragon can be used for creating dragon warriors to be a bit steep. IMO, teeth that can be used for this purpose should be a "magic item" but I guess that's for each DM to decide?

Furthermore, I don't think that a casting of Identify can reveal the name of the dragon in question (in 2E), especially since the teeth aren't described as being magic items per se.

The Armor Class of 2E dragon warriors can be rather a lot better than the author may have wanted (because 2E MC1 dragons).

And finally, that dragons warriors are also going to be tough cookies if you were to use what the 1E/2E rules for various constructs/automatons seem to imply (comprehensively grouped for the first time in 3E, I think). At the very least they would be immune to a whole lot more than just "sleep, charm, and hold".
So perhaps dragon warriors should not be seen as constructs/automatons of any kind, but rather flesh-and-blood entities (sort of) with only the immunities of the original - because... magical creations?

 

[Cleon]

Well, I can't help you with any 5E rules coz I know virtually nothing of anything beyond 2E.

So what I can say may or may not be relevant to 5E, but here goes.

First, I've always found the author's suggestion that the canines of any dragon can be used for creating dragon warriors to be a bit steep. IMO, teeth that can be used for this purpose should be a "magic item" but I guess that's for each DM to decide?

Well I doubt he meant someone could yank a fang out of the dragon's mouth, shout it's name and hey-presto you've got a Dragon Warrior.

My thinking was the original monster was clearly some sort of one-use magic item analogous to a disposable figurine of wondrous power, some of which had limited uses (i.e. a goat of terror only functioned three times then "loses its magical ability forever" per the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide.

So I'd say they are magic items made from the canines of a dragon, so no more than four can be made from one dragon.

Furthermore, I don't think that a casting of Identify can reveal the name of the dragon in question (in 2E), especially since the teeth aren't described as being magic items per se.

Well an identify might just give the caster the knowledge of the command word that activates the fang rather than the proper true name of the dragon. It's just the command word defaults to some casual or use-name of the dragon in question.

The 5E version of identify says "If it is a magic item or some other magic-imbued object, you learn its properties and how to use them" so should provide the name that activates the dragon warrior's fang.

The Armor Class of 2E dragon warriors can be rather a lot better than the author may have wanted (because 2E MC1 dragons).

Well Dragons did get a significant power boost in the switch from 1E to 2E so that's hardly surprising. In the 1977 Monster Manual all age categories of dragon had the same Armour Class, so a Red Dragon was AC –1 whether it was a wyrmling and a great wyrm. In 2E AD&D, a Young dragon has the same AC as a 1E dragon, but younger and older dragon's have better or worse AC based on their Hit Die Modifiers.

Annoyingly, the Dragon, General entry of the Monstrous Compendium and Monstrous Manual are very bad at explaining this, and the example in MC1 - Monstrous Compendium Volume One (1989) got its sums wrong: a juvenile Brass Dragon is AC 0 and a Very Old one is AC –5 not the –4 it claims, since Very Old is 5 age categories better than Juvenile. The Dragon, Brass entry in MC1 shows the correct ACs for all a 2E Brass's age categories.

For our conversion I'd either give them the AC of one of the lower age ranks, like Wyrmling or Young, whichever we feel is appropriate.

Let's see, in In 5E those are:

Dragon	Wyrmling	Young Dragon
Black	AC 17	AC 18
Blue	AC 17	AC 18
Green	AC 17	AC 18
Red	AC 17	AC 18
White	AC 16	AC 17
Brass	AC 16	AC 17
Bronze	AC 17	AC 18
Copper	AC 16	AC 17
Gold	AC 17	AC 18
Silver	AC 17	AC 18

So either 16 or 17 if we use a Wyrmling or 17 or 18 for a Young Dragon. I'd lean towards the latter.

That does raise an issue. It seems more trouble than it's worth to have ten Dragon Warrior entries, one for each of the ten 10 standard types of Dragon (i.e. a Black Dragon Warrior, Red Dragon Warrior, et cetera.) so I'm rather fold them all into one entry.

Which means it'd need something like:

Armor Class 18 (natural armor) if black, blue, bronze, gold, green, red or silver; 17 (natural armor) if white, brass or copper​

Damage Immunities acid if black or copper; cold if silver or white; fire if brass, gold or red; lightning if blue or bronze; poison if green​

And finally, that dragons warriors are also going to be tough cookies if you were to use what the 1E/2E rules for various constructs/automatons seem to imply (comprehensively grouped for the first time in 3E, I think). At the very least they would be immune to a whole lot more than just "sleep, charm, and hold".
So perhaps dragon warriors should not be seen as constructs/automatons of any kind, but rather flesh-and-blood entities (sort of) with only the immunities of the original - because... magical creations?

My preference would be to stat them up as a monster of some kind and have the "dragon warrior's fang" be a single use magic item that just summons, creates or conjures a dragon warrior for X period of time.

Not sure what type would make the most sense for them. Humanoid might work, as would Monstrosity, but other types don't feel quite right.

Don't want to go overboard on the immunities. These are comparatively low-powered critters and I'm not convinced they are constructs, so I wouldn't support giving it immunity to charmed, exhaustion, frightened, paralyzed, petrified, poisoned like a 5E Flesh Golem

Also, these are comparable to a figurine of wondrous power and the creatures those figurines create don't have any extra immunities: a bronze griffon is just a Griffon, for example. The only 5E figurine in the SRD with immunities is the obsidian steed, but that's because it turns into a Nightmare and those monsters possess fire immunity.

The original's immunity to sleep, charm and hold was one of the standard immunity sets of undead or constructs. Most constructs and undead don't have many immunities in 5E. A standard Skeleton, for example, is just immune to poison and exhaustion.

The 5E sleep spell doesn't affect creature immune to being charmed, and the hold spells cause the target to be paralyzed. So if we gave them:

Condition Immunities charmed, paralyzed; plus poisoned if green​

Then that'd roughly duplicate the immunities of the original Dragon Warriors. It's worth noting that Dragons had immunity to paralysis in some editions of D&D.