D&D 5E Monster conversions for The Ghost Tower of Inverness
Cleon
Legend
Come to think of it, how often can real-world bombardier beetles use their spray?
They produce it by mixing two reactive fluids together, so only need to open some valves to create a spray. That suggests the main limiting factor is the capacity of the reservoirs that hold those fluids. Although the reaction produces a lot of heat, so they might need to wait a bit to literally cool down between sprays to avoid cooking their own abdomens.
A bit of web searching found a Dallas Zoo website that said they could spray up to 29 times per day, but didn't give any sources.
An article on the US National Library of Medicine seems a more reliable source - Defensive production of formic acid (80%) by a carabid beetle (Galerita lecontei) - says that beetle can hold about six sprays at "full capacity", but takes roughly 5.5 days to replenish a single spray's worth of the reactive fluids.
That's roughly equivalent to six times a month.
So I'm thinking a few times per day or month for a Giant Bombardier Beetle would be a closer to the real-world animal than At-Will or a Short-Rest-recharge.
They produce it by mixing two reactive fluids together, so only need to open some valves to create a spray. That suggests the main limiting factor is the capacity of the reservoirs that hold those fluids. Although the reaction produces a lot of heat, so they might need to wait a bit to literally cool down between sprays to avoid cooking their own abdomens.
A bit of web searching found a Dallas Zoo website that said they could spray up to 29 times per day, but didn't give any sources.
An article on the US National Library of Medicine seems a more reliable source - Defensive production of formic acid (80%) by a carabid beetle (Galerita lecontei) - says that beetle can hold about six sprays at "full capacity", but takes roughly 5.5 days to replenish a single spray's worth of the reactive fluids.
That's roughly equivalent to six times a month.
So I'm thinking a few times per day or month for a Giant Bombardier Beetle would be a closer to the real-world animal than At-Will or a Short-Rest-recharge.
I did some further comparisons of hit-dice and hit points of other current CR 1 creatures, and there are plenty such as the Giant Toad (6d10 + 6), Giant Hyena (6d10 + 12), and Giant Octopous (8d10 + 8) with equivalent or higher HP to the Bombardier Beetle. That said, those creatures don't often have much in the way of special abilities, so when combined with the Vapor Cloud effect, I think it makes sense to drop the HD on the Beetle to 4d8 + 4. I'm also changing the recharge on the Vapor Cloud to (recharges after a long rest).
Cleon
Legend
Where are these from? I can't find them in any of the 5E preview Bestiaries I have at hand.
Incidentally, all three of the above have HD that are pretty close to previous versions:
The AD&D/3E Giant Octopus is also 8 HD.
The AD&D Giant Hyena (Hyaenodon) is 5 HD, while the closest official 3E equivalent, an SRD Hyena advanced to Large size, is 4 HD.
The 3E Dire Toad from Monster Manual II has 4 HD, although its worth noting that the earlier-published AD&D and 3E Giant Toad have 2 HD.
I'd be more inclined to lower the HD while keeping the Vapour Cloud it at some sort of recharge (X-6) usage, so it can potentially use it several times in a combat.
Giant Hyena, Giant Octopus and Giant Toad are all in the 'Dungeon Master’s Basic Rules Version 0.1'
Grazzt
Demon Lord
DM's Basic Rules that WotC put up. Can snag them here... http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules
EDIT: Jadrax beat me to it.
Giant Toad (6d10 + 6), avg 39 hp, averages to more than double 4d8, avg 18 hp (3E Dire Toad 4 HD)
Giant Hyena (6d10 + 12), avg 45 hp, averages to more than double 5d8, avg 22 hp (AD&D Hyaenodon)
Giant Octopous (8d10 + 8), avg 52 hp, is quite a bit more than 8d8, avg 36 hp (3E Giant Octopus)
So the trend in 5e is to have significantly more HP than prior editions for the same monsters. Remember, prior editions used d8 for HD almost exclusively (a few exceptions would call for d10 in the stat-block, but those were rare). Also, monsters now get their con bonus to HP and while plenty of monsters in 2e had 2 + 2 HD etc, the + portion wasn't as common or as high as it gets in 5e.
There are several factors to consider when comparing HD of 5e to prior editions, including size and con bonus. 5e tends to use HP and Damage as its primary scaling factors for monster difficulty. Prior editions often used THAC0 and AC instead, so generally as the 'challenge rating' of monsters increase, their 5e versions tend to diverge quite a bit from prior edition versions, as the 5e versions get more HP and do more damage, but keep a relatively low AC and BAB in comparison to the 2e/3e version which will often have fewer HD, do less damage per hit, but have better AC and BAB.
Cleon
Legend
Thanks.
I've already got that somewhere in my 5E D&D pdfs, there are just too many of the dang things.
Cleon
Legend
The text of this post is set to COLOR=#000000, which makes it nigh illegible when viewing this website in "Eric Noah" Style. That used to happen to me sometimes when cutting & pasting from another source.
Actually, the Dire Toad has 26 average hit points, not 18 - it's a 3E creature so gets its +2 Con bonus on each of its four Hit Dice. It's also either Medium sized (Monster Manual II) or Small (Masters of the Wild) so is unable to swallow Man-sized victims like the 5E version, which is Large sized.
The AD&D Giant Toad is also M-sized but only has 2 HD and comes in both regular and poisonous varieties, neither of which can Swallow Whole - although the AD&D Giant Frog does have that special attack.
I'd eyeball the 5E version as being roughly equivalent to the 3E one, but it's considerably stronger than the AD&D one. If someone wants to use an AD&D scenario with Giant Toads in 5E they may want to whip up a cut-down version of the creature that's a Medium sized 3 or 4 HD monster.
I'm already conversant with the hit point / damage inflation that's occurred over editions.
Of course, that's not the only thing that matters when comparing different editions of a monster.
Checking the 5E version of the Giant Octopus it's noticeably that it's considerably less dangerous than earlier versions, but that's not mainly due to HP inflation, but because the earlier version has multiple attacks - up to eight constricting tentacles plus a beak, while the 5E version only has a single "Tentacles" attack.
You'd likely need several 5E Giant Octopodes to pose as dangerous a challenge to a party of adventures as a single AD&D or 3E one would.
Of the three Giant creatures you mentioned, the Giant Hyena is the only one that appears very close in comparative effectiveness to the AD&D/3E versions.
Interesting comment on the text color issue, I view ENWorld using the default color scheme and I actually copy/pasted from the prior ENWorld post, not another source, but I'll try and make sure that odd color formatting doesn't creep into my posts going forward.
You are absolutely correct that there is a lot more going on than simply comparing a creature based on its name, that the attacks and abilities must also be taken into account. I'll be the first to admit that these conversions are pretty much guesses at best
Given that I was converting a 1e module, I mostly used the 1e Monster Manual as a source for inspiration when comparing abilities, as well as looking to other similar monsters in 5e to try and keep conversions more in the 'reskin / powerswap' realm as much as possible. While I have all of the editions' monster books, I didn't do a thorough analysis of each monster down through the ages to try and come up with the 5e version, but thus far when playing through this adventure with a group of 4 5th - 6th level characters, things seem to be about the right level of difficulty. Certainly some encounters are pretty easy, but I suspect a group of 5th - 6th level 1e characters wouldn't really have a tough time with 1e Bombardier Beetles either, so it is quite clear to me that the original module is intended to present encounters of a wide difficulty range, and that seems to be the case using the conversions I've posted.
I am anxiously awaiting a copy of the MM so I can have more examples to use as sources. Right now monster conversions are a lot of guesswork
You are absolutely correct that there is a lot more going on than simply comparing a creature based on its name, that the attacks and abilities must also be taken into account. I'll be the first to admit that these conversions are pretty much guesses at best
Given that I was converting a 1e module, I mostly used the 1e Monster Manual as a source for inspiration when comparing abilities, as well as looking to other similar monsters in 5e to try and keep conversions more in the 'reskin / powerswap' realm as much as possible. While I have all of the editions' monster books, I didn't do a thorough analysis of each monster down through the ages to try and come up with the 5e version, but thus far when playing through this adventure with a group of 4 5th - 6th level characters, things seem to be about the right level of difficulty. Certainly some encounters are pretty easy, but I suspect a group of 5th - 6th level 1e characters wouldn't really have a tough time with 1e Bombardier Beetles either, so it is quite clear to me that the original module is intended to present encounters of a wide difficulty range, and that seems to be the case using the conversions I've posted.
I am anxiously awaiting a copy of the MM so I can have more examples to use as sources. Right now monster conversions are a lot of guesswork
