5E: Converting Monsters from White Dwarf Magazine for Fifth Edition

[Cleon]

While we're at it...I did brother of the pine....I had a think about the version posted a few years ago which came out before cantrips were a thing....and came up with this....toning it down a bit asa group monster

Anyhow, to start with I believe it is 5E policy to use gender-neutral names for collectives of creatures unless they literally are all of a particular sex, so unless the Brothers of the Pines are literally all men (as if gender means anything to an undead) we should probably tweak the "Brother" to something else, such as like "Child", "Kindred", "Spawn", "Warrior" or "Scion".

Also, will you also be converting the Leader and Jarl of this monster? I think you should, in which case I suggest you need a title for the group and each individual creature.

For exampe, 5e has a family Ghouls that contains the Ghoul (=Ghoul, Common) and the Ghast (=Ghoul, Ghast) in the Monster Manual, and there are many more types in subsequent works.

So maybe something like:

Kindred of the Pines
Kindred of the Pines, Warrior
Kindred of the Pines, Leader
Kindred of the Pines, Jarl

With the Warrior being the CR 1 basic version we're currently working on, the Leader being a 4th-level CR 2 spellcaster and the Jarl being, say, CR 3?

We could also swap out the "of the" and "Kindred" when referring to these creatures in the description and use "Pine Kindred", "Warriors of the Pines", "Pine Warrior", "Jarl of the Pines" and so on.

Also, "Leader" is kind of boring as a name. Since "Jarl" is a Scandinavian title for a high-ranking noble, I would suggest using "Thane" instead. If you want to go the whole hog we could change the "Warriors" to some sort of Huscarl, although since that literally means Houseman (in the sense of a household retainer / bodyguard to a noble) and they live in the woods rather than houses, I guess "Wudcarl" (meaning Woodman) or "Fircarl" (meaning Pineman) would be more appropriate.

Kindred of the Pines
Kindred of the Pines, Fircarl
Kindred of the Pines, Thane
Kindred of the Pines, Jarl

What thinks thee?

 

[Casimir Liber]

Still don't care for that "Description" title. The print Monster Manual layout has the monster's name above the descriptive text and I prefer that layout. Does DnDBeyond allow you to change "Description" to "Argorian Wormkin"?

I notice that the 5eSRD.com website's Monster Database preferred an "About" tag for its fluff info, but I like that less than "Description".

Apart from that quibble it looks done to me.

So shall we add version 3 of this critter to the White Dwarf Conversion Index or am I indexing a version 4 with that minor tweak?

In either case, I think we're ready to move on to the Pine Bros.

I will see what I can do about the description....weird.

...crap - can't do anything so happy to go with that version (3)

 

[Casimir Liber]

Okay - renamed - calling the base one a warrior seemed a bit lame. Plenty of tribal monsters have no/null name for base version so left blank. Also "Pine kindred" so much easier than "Kindred of the Pine"....and thane/jarl

 

[Casimir Liber]

Okay - original post was here - If we have to give the base Pine Kindred a name, let's just call it "common".

 

[Cleon]

Okay - original post was here - If we have to give the base Pine Kindred a name, let's just call it "common".

Okay, I've updated the White Dwarf Conversion Index with its first 5E conversion.

Some elements of your previous conversion look like they can be cribbed for the Thane, but we can leave them 'til later.

If I understand you right, you originally wanted these chaps to be deployable in large mobs?

At the moment the basic Pine Kindred is CR 1 so will be roughly equivalent to a Bugbear, which is unsuitable for such Encounters unless the party is very high level.

Should we add a CR 1/4 "Pine Kindred Thrall" to fill that niche? Basically an undead plantman version of the Cultist with a single cantrip and 3d8 Hit Dice? Or have you abandoned that idea.

I like the idea of the regular Pine Kindred being the CR 1 versions though, maybe the Thralls are newly transformed victims or temporary disposable minions? We can worry about the background details when we get around to the Description.

 

[Casimir Liber]

Hmm...maybe just nerfing the base kindred to 2d8+6 then? Seems a bit of overkill to have four levels....?

 

[Cleon]

Hmm...maybe just nerfing the base kindred to 2d8+6 then? Seems a bit of overkill to have four levels....?

Let's just stick to the current 1-2-3 CR then.

I've got some ideas for them, but it'll take more time than I've got at the moment. Might post them on the morrow. Bye for now!

 

[Casimir Liber]

Yeah...Looking at the original - it came out as a lvl 3 monster, so maybe not a grunt-level enemy if we are keeping some sort of faith with the original concept...anyway. Open to suggestions.

Also - I like the name "Thrall" for the lowest/base level incarnation of these.

Also - is it useful to add typical spells the kindred might use as a default?

 

[Cleon]

Yeah...Looking at the original - it came out as a lvl 3 monster, so maybe not a grunt-level enemy if we are keeping some sort of faith with the original concept...anyway. Open to suggestions.

Bear in mind that the "level III" of the Fiend Factory version is its Monstermark level, which may not correspond to later editions Challenge Ratings or the monster level used in official AD&D creatures.

But as I said, I'm eyeballing them as roughly on par with an AD&D Bugbear in terms of physical threat, although their spells and supernatural defenses make them a tougher proposition we can easily tweak them to be a similar CR in 5E.

Also - I like the name "Thrall" for the lowest/base level incarnation of these.

Well thrall means slave, so I'm not in favour of using that term for the CR 1 incarnation, since they are more akin to warriors in service to the thanes and jarls. If you don't like fircarl or huscarl for their name, I'd rather just call them Pine Kindred. There is precedent - the basic Ghoul is just called a Ghoul in the Monster Manual.

I'd leave discussing whether to add "Pine Thralls" and how to stat them until after we've finished converting the three varieties described in White Dwarf #21.

Also - is it useful to add typical spells the kindred might use as a default?

Standard practice is that a 5E spellcasting creature has a spell selection spells listed, but these are typical spells so a spellcaster can have a different selection as the DM desires.

 

[Casimir Liber]

ok will sort some likely spells. Point taken on "thrall" - leaving bare seems best option to me.