Converting Greyhawk monsters

[Cleon]

Your revision to tactics is fine, and I prefer the bribery option when it's losing. More role-playing opportunity. And anything that gets PCs to interact with otyughs is a good thing.

I'll update the Working Draft with those tactics.

Speaking of which, do aurotyughs enjoy waste as much as normal otyughs? We should figure that out. I say yes: it sits on top of its "true treasure" of filth to hide it from victims.

It is encountered close to "human remains" in the original text, so it obviously doesn't mind being fairly near decaying matter. I agree with giving it the same filth enjoyment as its kin.

Wouldn't the smell give it away?

 

[Echohawk]

Wouldn't the smell give it away?

It might, but won't many adventurers be quite willing to strip shiny treasure from real, smelly human remains, anyway?

 

[Cleon]

It might, but won't many adventurers be quite willing to strip shiny treasure from real, smelly human remains, anyway?

Well, freyar appears to be suggesting the aurotyugh hides its filth underneath its gold, suggesting it might not be a question of "look at this gold lying next to a dead body" but "why does this pile of gold smell like dung".

In either case, I'd suspect an average experience adventurer would be paranoid cautious enough to suspect something was amiss!

 

[freyar]

Maybe the aurotyugh can mask the smell as part of the Disguise check? But I'm flexible; I just think it would be a shame to strip out that otyugh flavor.

Human remains near gold might make adventurers think "trap" rather than "monster," though, which is fine with me.

 

[Cleon]

Maybe the aurotyugh can mask the smell as part of the Disguise check? But I'm flexible; I just think it would be a shame to strip out that otyugh flavor.

Human remains near gold might make adventurers think "trap" rather than "monster," though, which is fine with me.

We could add some flavor about them collecting garbage and the remains of their victims, I suppose. Just notice that they prefer non-smelly rubbish, like broken metal objects and bones.

The original text calls it a "metal creature", so maybe they are "metallic" otyughs who wallow in decaying metal (and mineral-rich organic objects such as bone) rather than the organic filth of a normal otyugh?

Also, I'm thinking we should do something about that "metal creature" bit. Maybe give them some more invulnerabilities (poison? nausea? stunning?), but take Con damage from rust attacks?

 

[freyar]

I think the immunity to disease is probably enough (odd that the normal otyugh doesn't have that), but I might go for a save bonus vs poison if Echohawk also likes it.

I feel like we've used or written a "vulnerabilty to rust" SQ we could use here. Remember where that is?

 

[Echohawk]

I really like the explanation of the aurotyugh wallowing in decaying metal, and the vulnerability to rust idea. I'm also mildly in favor of the poison save bonus.

But I confess the only reason there is a "mildly" in there is because I think the odds of that ability actually coming into play are pretty low, and 4e monster design has trained me to dislike monster abilities that aren't likely to be used in play. I know it is a little sacrilegious but at least from a DM's perspective, I really like 4e monster design. From a fluff, history and lore point of view, not so much, but from a usefulness-in-play perspective, very much so.

I am really hoping that D&D Next can keep the usefulness-in-play parts of 4e monster design, but add back spoonfuls of the history and lore from earlier editions.

 

[Cleon]

I think the immunity to disease is probably enough (odd that the normal otyugh doesn't have that), but I might go for a save bonus vs poison if Echohawk also likes it.

Actually, the Immunity To Disease was in the draft because I used my Otyugh Redux as the base creature rather than the SRD Otyugh.

I feel like we've used or written a "vulnerabilty to rust" SQ we could use here. Remember where that is?

We gave the Sentinel Eidolon such a SQ:

Rust Vulnerability (Ex): A sentinel eidolon is affected normally by rust attacks, such as that of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.

The reason I suggested Con damage is that a rust monster's attack would be instantly lethal to the aurotyugh if the latter fails its Fort save.

Hmm, on second thoughts, how about having rusting grasp work normally, and note that other rusting attacks affect the aurotyugh like the rusting grasp spell (Caster level = HD of monster if no CL stated). Then a rust monster's rust touch does 3d6+5 damage?

Like this...

Rust Sensitivity (Ex): An aurotyugh's metallic biology is partly vulnerable to rusting attacks. The rusting grasp spell affects an aurotyugh as if if were a ferrous creature. Rust special attacks, such as the antennae of a rust monster, have the same affect on an aurotyugh as a rusting grasp spell: 3d6 damage +1 per caster level (max +15) per successful attack. If the rust attack has no CL, use the HD of the attacker.

 

[Cleon]

I really like the explanation of the aurotyugh wallowing in decaying metal, and the vulnerability to rust idea.

Glad you liked it. We can leave the decaying metal stuff for the flavour text.

I'm also mildly in favor of the poison save bonus.

But I confess the only reason there is a "mildly" in there is because I think the odds of that ability actually coming into play are pretty low, and 4e monster design has trained me to dislike monster abilities that aren't likely to be used in play. I know it is a little sacrilegious but at least from a DM's perspective, I really like 4e monster design. From a fluff, history and lore point of view, not so much, but from a usefulness-in-play perspective, very much so.

I'd prefer straight immunity to poison.

Firstly, if it has a weird metallic biology, I doubt regular poisons would have much effect on it.

Secondly, in my experience if it's just a +X to Fort saves or whatever, it's a lot more likely to get forgotten in the heat of combat. If it says "immune to poison" in the SQ then the DM is a lot more likely to remember it.

I am really hoping that D&D Next can keep the usefulness-in-play parts of 4e monster design, but add back spoonfuls of the history and lore from earlier editions.

I was going to quip along the lines of "burn the heretic who prefers 4E to 3E!" but, frankly, I have nothing against 4th edition. There's a lot of sound ideas in it. I'm not in favour of the break from previous-edition flavour and abundance of dissociative rules. However, I'd happily play it. The main reason I gave it a miss is I've already got piles of AD&D, BECMI, 3rd edition and Pathfinder stuff. I'd mainly be getting it for adventures and monsters. I haven't been impressed by the adventures, and find Pathfinder monsters have more flavour.

At the moment I'm cautiously optimistic about D&D Next, although I haven't seen enough to get a clear idea yet. I'm in the "will probably get the core rules, and will see how it goes from there" stage.

 

[Echohawk]

I'd prefer straight immunity to poison.

That works for me.

I was going to quip along the lines of "burn the heretic who prefers 4E to 3E!" but, frankly, I have nothing against 4th edition.

Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say I prefer 4e over 3e!

The players in my current campaign, about half of whom haven't played any edition other than 4e, absolutely love the tactical combat of 4e. They don't want to switch to D&D Next at all. Me, I find the heavy focus on combat a little much, and of all the editions I've played/DMed, I think I actually had the most fun during actual play with 2e, followed very closely by 3e.

In terms of preparing games though, 4e is a real pleasure. Compared to the amount of time I was spending prepping highish level (±17th) games at the end of my 3.5 campaign, 4e prep is such a pleasure. I really hope that D&D Next can manage to keep that aspect of 4e intact.