Witch Hound

[Cleon]

I did the same for the firegiant

Oh right. I'm too used to Casimir's approach to png file format monster stats.

He post each version separately rather than overwriting them.

I prefer to put my conversion/homebrew in one post and update it over time too. It makes it easier to Index for a start!

 

[Axe11154]

Oh right. I'm too used to Casimir's approach to png file format monster stats.

He post each version separately rather than overwriting them.

I prefer to put my conversion/homebrew in one post and update it over time too. It makes it easier to Index for a start!

I just thought it would be nice for fresher people to see the updated at the top and not the old versions. btw, what do you think of the updates?

 

[Cleon]

btw, what do you think of the updates?

Let's see, the DEX could maybe be higher. It went from 19 to 13!

That's less than the DEX 15 a Dire Wolf and the impression I get is you're aiming for something more fragile but more agile and lethal than a Dire Wolf.

So I could see DEX 15 or 17 as being reasonable. The latter would remove the need for the Proficiency in DEX Saving Throws.

The Perception and Stealth skills appear extraordinarily high. Does it need double proficiency for them both? Its already got advantage on some Perception rolls from its keen senses.

Speaking of which, Keen Hearing and Smell still says "wolf".

There's a "witch hound" with a space in it in Pack Tactics and in the Witch Horn's Charming Prick, plus a capitalized "Witchhound" in Multiattack. All three should be "witchhound" assuming that's the spelling you've settled on.

The Witch Horn is much better and nicely compact. I would suggest some tweaks to the first paragraph as follows:

Witch Horn (Recharge 6). Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8+4) piercing damage and causes a random effect to occur. Roll 1d8 to determine the random effect and what DC 12 saving throw the targeted creature must roll to avoid it. On a failed save, the target is affected by the witch horn's magic for 1 minute. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the random effect on itself on a success.

The Deafening Swelling is a bit hard to parse. How about one of the following?:

3. Deafening Swelling. The targeted creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be deafened as its ears begin to swell.​

​

3. Deafening Swelling. The targeted creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be deafened.​

Oh, and are its claws supposed to do 4d4+3 damage? It seems odd for a canine to have claws that do almost twice as much damage as its fangs, plus it's got two of them!

At first glance the Multiattack damage looks overly generous for CR 2 (1d8+3 plus two 4d4+3 for 33½ on average) but considering how fragile the Witchhound is it's not unreasonable. Compare some CR 2 Monster Manual beasties:

Witchhound: AC 14, HP 26, 33½ damage.​

Awakened Tree: AC 13, HP 59, 14½ damage.​

Gargoyle: AC 15, HP 52, 11 damage.​

Griffon: AC 12, HP 59, 19½ damage.​

Polar Bear: AC 12, HP 42, 21½ damage.​

Rhinoceros: AC 11, HP 45, 14 damage (23 charging).​

The Witchhound does 156% the damage of a Polar Bear, but the bear has 162% the HP, so they work out about even.

However, would you be adverse to rearranging the damage a bit so the bite does more than each claw? Maybe:

Bite 3d6+3​

Claws 2d6+3​

That's the same average damage of 33½.

 

[Casimir Liber]

I do like tradeoffs in statblocks sometimes in monsters of equal CR - so they all don't have too similar AC/hp/damage/etc. I am happy to put it on dndbeyond too if you want once at a finished version. Nice idea BTW. Been using a few hags too...

If they have the blood of a hag, does that give them any kinship with them? Do hags like them? hate them? maybe try and control them?

 

[Axe11154]

Let's see, the DEX could maybe be higher. It went from 19 to 13!

That's less than the DEX 15 a Dire Wolf and the impression I get is you're aiming for something more fragile but more agile and lethal than a Dire Wolf.

So I could see DEX 15 or 17 as being reasonable. The latter would remove the need for the Proficiency in DEX Saving Throws.

The Perception and Stealth skills appear extraordinarily high. Does it need double proficiency for them both? Its already got advantage on some Perception rolls from its keen senses.

Speaking of which, Keen Hearing and Smell still says "wolf".

There's a "witch hound" with a space in it in Pack Tactics and in the Witch Horn's Charming Prick, plus a capitalized "Witchhound" in Multiattack. All three should be "witchhound" assuming that's the spelling you've settled on.

The Witch Horn is much better and nicely compact. I would suggest some tweaks to the first paragraph as follows:

Witch Horn (Recharge 6). Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8+4) piercing damage and causes a random effect to occur. Roll 1d8 to determine the random effect and what DC 12 saving throw the targeted creature must roll to avoid it. On a failed save, the target is affected by the witch horn's magic for 1 minute. The creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the random effect on itself on a success.

The Deafening Swelling is a bit hard to parse. How about one of the following?:

3. Deafening Swelling. The targeted creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be deafened as its ears begin to swell.​

​

3. Deafening Swelling. The targeted creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be deafened.​

Oh, and are its claws supposed to do 4d4+3 damage? It seems odd for a canine to have claws that do almost twice as much damage as its fangs, plus it's got two of them!

At first glance the Multiattack damage looks overly generous for CR 2 (1d8+3 plus two 4d4+3 for 33½ on average) but considering how fragile the Witchhound is it's not unreasonable. Compare some CR 2 Monster Manual beasties:

Witchhound: AC 14, HP 26, 33½ damage.​

Awakened Tree: AC 13, HP 59, 14½ damage.​

Gargoyle: AC 15, HP 52, 11 damage.​

Griffon: AC 12, HP 59, 19½ damage.​

Polar Bear: AC 12, HP 42, 21½ damage.​

Rhinoceros: AC 11, HP 45, 14 damage (23 charging).​

The Witchhound does 156% the damage of a Polar Bear, but the bear has 162% the HP, so they work out about even.

However, would you be adverse to rearranging the damage a bit so the bite does more than each claw? Maybe:

Bite 3d6+3​

Claws 2d6+3​

That's the same average damage of 33½.

oh yeah the perceptions not suppose tobe that high. the program I use has double selected anytime you start it up so I always forget to unclick it. Also the claws arnt suppose tobe claws, i forgot to change the name when I first posted, there suppose tobe sharp talons which is why they would do more damage then bite.

You can see how long they are in the 3d render picture.

 

[Axe11154]

I do like tradeoffs in statblocks sometimes in monsters of equal CR - so they all don't have too similar AC/hp/damage/etc. I am happy to put it on dndbeyond too if you want once at a finished version. Nice idea BTW. Been using a few hags too...

If they have the blood of a hag, does that give them any kinship with them? Do hags like them? hate them? maybe try and control them?

all 3 actually. I am currently running them in my game and I actually have been using them in all 3 ways.

see the hags im using created witches (basically very corrupt warlocks. im using the stats from curse of strahd for the witches) who have greedily took a pact with a coven of hags. The witches basically drank the blood for their part of the pact and because of this their blood is now the same as the hags.

So heres where the fun began

the hags have fed a few witches to their personal wolves to corrupt them,
a few wild packs have hunted and eatten some of the witches on their way down the road. These wolves have no alliance so they still hunt the hags witches, but of course the hags want those ones under their control too.

 

[Cleon]

Also the claws arnt suppose tobe claws, i forgot to change the name when I first posted, there suppose tobe sharp talons which is why they would do more damage then bite.

You can see how long they are in the 3d render picture.

Those are supposed to be claws? They look more like fingers to me.

Still seems too much damage to me.

Consider the 5E Brown Bear, it does a point more damage with its bite: 8½ (1d8 + 4) while its claws do 11 (2d6 + 4), or 129% bite damage.

While the witchhound does 7½ (1d8 + 3) with its bite and 26! with its claws (8d4 + 6), or 346% bite damage.

That's over two and a half times the claw:bite damage ratio of the Brown Bear. That seems a trifle unlikely.

If if did 13½ (3d6 + 3) with its bite and 20 (4d6 + 6) with its claws, then its two 10 (2d6 + 3) claw attacks would do 148% bite damage, which is still a higher ratio than a Brown Bear.

 

[Axe11154]

Those are supposed to be claws? They look more like fingers to me.

Still seems too much damage to me.

Consider the 5E Brown Bear, it does a point more damage with its bite: 8½ (1d8 + 4) while its claws do 11 (2d6 + 4), or 129% bite damage.

While the witchhound does 7½ (1d8 + 3) with its bite and 26! with its claws (8d4 + 6), or 346% bite damage.

That's over two and a half times the claw:bite damage ratio of the Brown Bear. That seems a trifle unlikely.

If if did 13½ (3d6 + 3) with its bite and 20 (4d6 + 6) with its claws, then its two 10 (2d6 + 3) claw attacks would do 148% bite damage, which is still a higher ratio than a Brown Bear.

changed

 

[Cleon]

changed

The damage looks fine now.

Weren't you going to bump the DEX up to +2 or +3 and modify the Skills so they aren't all double- or double-plus-proficiencies?