Fiend Factory (White Dwarf) conversions

[Casimir Liber]

It's already got Camouflage for advantage on Stealth. Were you proposing Proficiency in Stealth as well?

The original monster does not quantify any ability to hide - my thinking was consting stealth (even with advantage) vs a bunch of wisdom/perception-heavy PCs might not make its hiding successful that much.....so yeah that's what I was thinking if we were going to make it any good with ambushing

 

[Cleon]

The original monster does not quantify any ability to hide - my thinking was consting stealth (even with advantage) vs a bunch of wisdom/perception-heavy PCs might not make its hiding successful that much.....so yeah that's what I was thinking if we were going to make it any good with ambushing

Well in theory I have no objection, especially as both the Giant Frog and Crocodile have Stealth proficiency in 5E to reflect their ambush predator tactics.

However, Advantage in Stealth is more effective than Proficiency for the spinescale and I'm reluctant to support giving them both. That'd make them way sneakier than a standard 5E croc. which doesn't seem justified.

Here's the numbers:

A Spinescale with Stealth +1 from its DEX 12 would on average roll 11.5 normally, 14.327 with Advantage and 8.175 with Disadvantage.

A Spinescale with Stealth +3 because it has Proficiency would roll averages of 13.5 normally, 16.327 with Advantage and 10.175 with Disadvantage.

So a Stealth-proficient Spinescale (13.5 average) is a little worse at hiding than an Stealth-advantaged Spinescale (14.327 average), but one with both is superior to both (16.327 average). Heck, it's even superior to a spinescale with double Stealth-proficiency for Stealth +5, which normally averages 15.5.

EDITING NOTE: Wandering around Homebrews I noticed "However, Advantage in Stealth is less effective than Proficiency at that CR" is wrong and felt compelled to change it.

 

[Casimir Liber]

Okay - my reasoning was based on more what it'd be up against - a party where players are now loading wisdom for Perception checks - and hence giving it a decent chance of actually surprising a party. If, say, there is a party of four where most people have perception 12-14, then it has to beat all of them in some cases to get some sort of surprise. Anyway, will happily defer to creator (just trying to mix things up a bit - as I've been DMing I'm just noticing some things and am keen to make monsters that mix things up a bit - good that there are now three of us!)

 

[Cleon]

Okay - my reasoning was based on more what it'd be up against - a party where players are now loading wisdom for Perception checks - and hence giving it a decent chance of actually surprising a party. If, say, there is a party of four where most people have perception 12-14, then it has to beat all of them in some cases to get some sort of surprise. Anyway, will happily defer to creator (just trying to mix things up a bit - as I've been DMing I'm just noticing some things and am keen to make monsters that mix things up a bit - good that there are now three of us!)

It only rolls Stealth once no matter how many creatures there are. The Hiding Rules say "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check." As in a single check rather than one per potential observer.

So in the above circumstances the spinescale needs one success against passive Perception 12-14 (call it DC 14 for a 35% chance of success), not four successful rolls against that target DC (which'd be 1.5% chance of success).

Multiple Search vs Perception checks usually require one of the following:

1. One or more of the creatures use a Search Action to make an active Perception checks.
2. There are multiple spinescales, since each mutant batrachian must roll its own Stealth check.

 

[Casimir Liber]

I know the spinescale rolls only once. Thing is, I've been playing with larger groups online and usually a couple of them are trying perception checks actively....(so (1)).

 

[Cleon]

I know the spinescale rolls only once. Thing is, I've been playing with larger groups online and usually a couple of them are trying perception checks actively....(so (1)).

So they're wasting time spamming Perception checks every round? Yeah, that's a common problem.

Search is an Action remember. A PC can't take an Attack Action against the spinescales if they've spent their action that round looking for them. That might discourage that behaviour!

Although to be honest I find the Stealth vs Perception mechanics a bit messed up. All skill comparison which involves one or more creature rolling against multiple creatures and fails if any of the skill contests fail is bound to have a low chance of success just from the way statistics work.

Besides, I'm not fond of the uniform result of the current passive Perception rules. I'd prefer it to be more random so even in an ambush versus passive Perception it's less deterministic than "everyone with a passive Perception of X or higher notices the enemy and can react".

I'd rather there be some kind of individual "Passive Perception Save" so a less Perception PC has at least some chance of noticing an ambush that a more alert PC fails to spot.

Maybe give the party a "Group Perception DC" based on its members passive Perception, numbers and Stealth (since a noisy party will give itself away and the clumsy PCs will hinder their comrades' sense).

Then the enemy creatures make one Stealth check against the Group Perception and, if successful, it achieves surprise. If it fails then some of the PCs notice the attack.

Maybe something like this:

1. The ambushers roll Stealth vs Group Perception DC.
2. If successful => entire group is surprised by ambush.
3. If failed => ambush fails partially or completely. Determine degree of failure equal to the number by which the Group Perception exceeds the Stealth check. Each PC rolls, say, 1d10* plus their Perception as a "Passive Perception Save". Whoever rolls highest spots the ambush, as does everyone who rolls within the degree of failure of the highest roller.
    * or maybe 1d12, or best of 2d10 if they have advantage (or are searching for threats?), or something else - I'm just spitballing here.

For example, if the Group Perception DC is 19 and the ambushing monster(s) roll Stealth 17, that's 2 degrees of failure.

If there's six ambushed PCs and they roll 6, 12, 13, 13, 14, 15 on their "Passive Perception Saves" then the two 13s, the 14 and 15 don't suffer surprise (as they're the highest result or within 2 points of it) while the 6 and 12 are surprised.

Hmm, to elaborate this Houserule brainstorming I'd consider having a creatures Initiative modifier play a role too. After all, it's no use noticing a monster if your reflexes are too slow to do anything about it. Maybe instead of a "Passive Perception Save" it's a "Reaction to Surprise Save" using a modifier equal to the PC's Perception plus Initiative?

'course it gets more complicated if two or more groups are trying to ambush each other as it'd (presumably) involve Group Stealth vs Group Stealth and Group Perception vs Group Perception checks, but I feel the approach has potential.

 

[Casimir Liber]

Wow...a much-necessary discussion but mighty diversion. For the moment, it just struck me that I can play the critter's contested stealth vs each perception check for each player, but only the successes get a go on the first round (like a surprise round of old). Which then gets me thinking if the increased complexity of the above gives more of an interesting playthrough. Hmmm...

Anyway, back to the critter. My idea was something that was decent at hiding, although the initial statblock in WD does not quantify any skill at same, so depends on how strictly we want to stick to the original....

 

[Cleon]

Wow...a much-necessary discussion but mighty diversion. For the moment, it just struck me that I can play the critter's contested stealth vs each perception check for each player, but only the successes get a go on the first round (like a surprise round of old). Which then gets me thinking if the increased complexity of the above gives more of an interesting playthrough. Hmmm...

Yeah, it's hardly germane to the conversion. Better get back to the Spinescale.

Anyway, back to the critter. My idea was something that was decent at hiding, although the initial statblock in WD does not quantify any skill at same, so depends on how strictly we want to stick to the original....

Well that's hardly unusual as if memory serves me right White Dwarf #2 came out so long ago AD&D hadn't even been published yet. The game mechanics back then were a bit minimalist.

The flavour text indicates they like to lurk in water and attack people who blunder into it, which suggest some proficiency at hiding. Well, or they're in water so muddy that people wading through it can't see things in it.

Anyhow, I'm inclined to leave it with just Camouflage unless Dr Simon want to add Skills to it.

I'm inclined to start a "General Monster Version" of the monster using the 5E Statblock Style of Converting Monsters from White Dwarf Magazine for Fifth Edition conversions? If only for (a) consistency and (b) to see what it looks like the adjustments determined above, such as the Hit Dice 4d6+4?

Do you think that's OK? We could consider it a separate conversion of the Spinescale, but that'd seem redundant.

We should give Dr Simon time to respond before going much further just to be courteous. We've always got the Grugotch to keep us occupied!

 

[Casimir Liber]

Agreed about letting Dr Simon deciding which of our tweaks he likes/doesn't like etc.

I might be missing something obvious but I am not sure what you mean by 'General Monster Version'

(apologies for late replies..I've had 18 hours of airport hell yesterday and this morning...)

 

[Cleon]

Agreed about letting Dr Simon deciding which of our tweaks he likes/doesn't like etc.

Fine. Let's give the good doctor a few days then, then PM them if Simon doesn't reply on this thread.

I might be missing something obvious but I am not sure what you mean by 'General Monster Version'

Basically post our own version formatted like this and edit it to our taste.