Converting monsters from Second Edition Monstrous Compendiums

[Cleon]

Hmmm, it's a little better than the fiend knight but maybe not enough for a full +1 CR boost. What do you think, CR +1 or CR +2? I think I lean toward CR +1 but a considerably larger LA.

Yes, that'd work. Most players would only want to become one if they're expecting to fight a lot of dragons.

 

[freyar]

Well, I'm not much good at LA estimation, but I'd guess at probably +3 or +4. Let me know what you think, and I'll update this thing.

 

[Cleon]

Well, I'm not much good at LA estimation, but I'd guess at probably +3 or +4. Let me know what you think, and I'll update this thing.

Well I'm not much cop at estimating Level Adjustment either, plus it's a pretty useless metric.

I'd err on the side of making it higher, since any PC who willingly stays an Undead Dragon Slayer is probably intending to slay a lot of dragons.


I'd be happy making them "—", but if we do give it an LA I'd guesstimate them at +4 or +5. That suggests we'll settle on LA +4 - That's the same as a Lich, which they're roughly in the same ballpark with as far as their combat abilities goes. They don't have as generally potent abilities as a Vampire (LA +6). Their lack of a Lich's phylactery or a Vampire's fast healing should lower the LA a bit, since it makes them significantly easier to destroy "permanently".

 

[freyar]

OK, Updated with no skills, no feats, CR +1, and LA +4.

Org: Solitary or party (1 plus 1d6 characters of varying class levels)?
Treasure: double standard (that just feels right)

 

[Cleon]

OK, Updated with no skills, no feats, CR +1, and LA +4.

Org: Solitary or party (1 plus 1d6 characters of varying class levels)?
Treasure: double standard (that just feels right)

The original had "No Appearing: 1 or 1-4" and that they're sometimes encountered in the company of skeleton warriors and dracoliches.

We should use that in the Org.

They also have "Treasure: Nil", which is contrary to your preferred Double Treasure. While I don't mind giving them some random loot, if we just let them have level-appropriate NPC gear that could be valuable enough in itself.
Org: Solitary or party (1-4 plus

 

[freyar]

Treasure: Gear ---- Would that work for you?

Why on earth would these hang out with dracoliches? Wouldn't they want to destroy the evil draconic beasties?

Org: Solitary, party (1-4 plus 1d6 characters of varying class levels), or hunt (1-4 plus XXX skeletal warriors)?

Do we know which skeletal warriors these are? I feel like there are several critters with similar names to that.

 

[Cleon]

Treasure: Gear ---- Would that work for you?

Yes, that'd work.

Why on earth would these hang out with dracoliches? Wouldn't they want to destroy the evil draconic beasties?

Undead Dragon Slayers: "The only good dragon is a dead dragon."

Dragotha: "I'm already dead."

Undead Dragon Slayers: "Buddy!"

More seriously, Undead Dragon Slayers want to kill creatures with the Dragon type.

A Dracolich is an Undead, not a Dragon.

Org: Solitary, party (1-4 plus 1d6 characters of varying class levels), or hunt (1-4 plus XXX skeletal warriors)?

I'm still unfond of the non-undead "characters of varying class levels" and I think we need a Dracolich in there.

Do we know which skeletal warriors these are? I feel like there are several critters with similar names to that.

Since the original stats are in a 2nd edition AD&D Dragon article from 1994, I'd assume the skeleton warriors are the 2E version from the Monstrous Manual (1993) and MC4 (1990) which are almost identical. They're also pretty much the same as the 1E Fiend Folio version.

The Creature Catalog conversion is pretty good.

 

[freyar]

Dracoliches have the Undead type, but they're Augmented Dragons. It just doesn't make much sense, and there's no reasoning for it in the original text. On the other hand, undead dragon slayers could very well be allied with a character party if out hunting dragons. I suppose we could drop that since "Solitary" covers meeting the PCs and hooking up, if it's a big deal to you.

Yeah, the CC conversion is fine (it is in fact the one used for the ToH), but I wasn't sure if they matched up. We might as well link to those.

 

[Cleon]

Dracoliches have the Undead type, but they're Augmented Dragons. It just doesn't make much sense, and there's no reasoning for it in the original text. On the other hand, undead dragon slayers could very well be allied with a character party if out hunting dragons. I suppose we could drop that since "Solitary" covers meeting the PCs and hooking up, if it's a big deal to you.

Where are you getting the "augmented Dragon" type from? Dracoliches don't have that subtype in the 3E Draconomicon. They're Undead plain and simple.

Yes, I know there's nothing to stop character parties allying with an Undead Dragon Slayer, it's just there's no mention of such a habit in the original text so and I don't fancy adding it.

There's little to prevent most intelligent monsters teaming up with adventurers, but they're not listed on half the organizations in the Monster Manuals!

Not all Dracoliches become that way voluntarily, some Dragons are forcibly turned into Dracoliches by evil spellcasters who then coerce them to become servants (presumably by having control of their phylactery). Maybe some Undead Dragon Slayers kill evil dragons using the dracolich brew then use their undead slaves as mounts to hunt their relatives?

Yeah, the CC conversion is fine (it is in fact the one used for the ToH), but I wasn't sure if they matched up. We might as well link to those.

Yes, that'd be fine.

I think there might be another Skeleton Warrior in a 3E Dragonlance supplement too, but I forget which one.

 

[freyar]

I'm getting it from the SRD:

Augmented Subtype: A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

There's no exception listed. I think, since Draconomicon was being written during the cross-over from 3.0 to 3.5, they just missed this. There are plenty of errors in D&D books.

I'm willing to leave out anything about PCs. Anyway, how about this?

Org: Solitary, hunt (1-4 plus 2d10 skeletal warriors), or X (1-4 plus 4d10 skeleton warriors and 1 dracolich)
as well as a description of your enslaved dracoliches in the background text.