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

[ilgatto]

A Dart's a finesse weapon though, so if a Sprite used one then, going by the Rules-as-Written, it would add its +4 DEX bonus to the piercing damage rather than its –4 STR penalty. That's an 8 point increase!

Yeah, I've been wondering about all that. So it would do 1 point of damage with its "tiny longsword" coz no "finesse" and then huge damage with a dart, which cannot be much larger. I've come across more similarly rickety rules during my short perusal of the 5E rules, so I'm glad I'm still - wait, better not go there.
At least, they so far seem to me to be fairly basic (pun intended) for monsters.

Since 3E came out the use of "Man" in D&D monster names has fallen out of favour to be replaced by "Folk". For example, Lizard Men are now Lizardfolk.

So Micemen likely call themselves Micefolk nowadays, or possibly the Mousefolk.

Hmm..., yeah, best not go there as well.

Now I'm wondering whether the preferred singular of the original monster was "Miceman". It might be, but I think "Mouseman" has a better ring to it.

Heh. I was wondering the same thing when I finally noticed it was micemen instead of mousemen. Said both out loud a couple of times and then decided that mouseman and micemen rule.

Unfortunately, White Dwarf #21 only ever refers to them in the plural so we'll likely never know the preferred singular usage.

Looks like you're not the only one!

I guess we're gonna need Mr. Liber to call us to order.

For the moment, the dragon warriors are turning out to be a bit too tricky for me to comment on since I've only started. Might give the spitting drake minidrag (WD30) a go, though.

 

[Casimir Liber]

ok coming in...yes micefolk will prove a headache in a few ways...the canon in later times leaves something to be desired but changing the canon then...changes the canon. We lose the aliteration in the genderless update, which is mildly annoying. Also, I like to do monsters that bring something extra and unusual to combat. Making them stealthy and small (and nothing else) renders them very similar to goblins. Musing on what else we could do that would keep in canon.

NB: shadowdancer typo fixed and updated to here

Anyway - I think varying ACs is a bit of overkill for the dragon warrior (AC is a bit flattened in 5e anyway), other comments taken on board and adjusting momentarily. Taken onbard other tweaks - gone for CON 17 and 10d8+30 for 75hp.

The movement issue is a vexing one. I'd be happier with 20ft movement if it had some other combat option that gave it extra manouevring to surprise opponents. Was musing on Fighter Student of War Maneuvers such as Brace, Riposte, Parry, or some other moving thing. Otherwise it's just cannon fodder.

 

[ilgatto]

ok coming in...yes micefolk will prove a headache in a few ways...the canon in later times leaves something to be desired but changing the canon then...changes the canon. We lose the aliteration in the genderless update, which is mildly annoying. Also, I like to do monsters that bring something extra and unusual to combat. Making them stealthy and small (and nothing else) renders them very similar to goblins. Musing on what else we could do that would keep in canon.

I've been pondering elaborating on what "traps" the micemen would drive their victims into. Pits, dead-falls - that would add some spice to the encounter.

Did... it... again...

Anyway - I think varying ACs is a bit of overkill for the dragon warrior (AC is a bit flattened in 5e anyway), other comments taken on board and adjusting momentarily. Taken onbard other tweaks - gone for CON 17 and 10d8+30 for 75hp.

I tend to agree with AC being a "constant" rather than changing as per that of the parent dragon. The differences can be huge in 2E (somewhat less so in 5E, I've seen) and this thread has got me thinking about my 2E conversion and I've decided to go for a "stable" AC by having all dragon warriors have an AC as a 2E Very Young dragon, regardless of the age of the parent dragon.
1E didn't have a changing AC for dragons and 1E dragon ACs became those for 2E Very Young dragons (mostly). In fact, I suppose it could be argued that variable ACs per dragon type for dragon warriors would sort of deviate from the original.
Using the AC of 2E Very Young dragons will still lead to dragon warriors from different parent dragons having their own AC, but that was also true for the original dragon warriors.
I wouldn't know which 5E AC to choose, though.

Then again, if you're wholly against any kind of variable AC, I suppose you could just give all them AC for (dragon?) scale mail and be done wit it.

The movement issue is a vexing one. I'd be happier with 20ft movement if it had some other combat option that gave it extra manouevring to surprise opponents. Was musing on Fighter Student of War Maneuvers such as Brace, Riposte, Parry, or some other moving thing. Otherwise it's just cannon fodder.

Wouldn't some sort of Multiattack be enough?

 

[ilgatto]

By the by: Was there ever a thread on this forum that converted 1E monsters to 2E? I've done a search on "White Dwarf" covering the forum and couldn't find anything, but can that be because of forum rebuilds and forums moving? For example, I've noticed that many pointers to 3E conversions are dead.

EDIT: I realize that there probably isn't much to say for a thread "converting" 1E monsters to 2E, but still.

 

[ilgatto]

By the by 2: Merry X-mas

 

[Cleon]

ok coming in...yes micefolk will prove a headache in a few ways...the canon in later times leaves something to be desired but changing the canon then...changes the canon. We lose the aliteration in the genderless update, which is mildly annoying. Also, I like to do monsters that bring something extra and unusual to combat. Making them stealthy and small (and nothing else) renders them very similar to goblins. Musing on what else we could do that would keep in canon.

We can worry about that later once the Dragon Warriors are out of the way.

NB: shadowdancer typo fixed and updated to here

That link still shows the old wording. I'm not seeing "An active shadowdancer becomes demonic-looking; its hawk-like face reveals flame-red eyes and a fanged mouth, and its hands are armed with sharp claws."

 

[Cleon]

Anyway - I think varying ACs is a bit of overkill for the dragon warrior (AC is a bit flattened in 5e anyway), other comments taken on board and adjusting momentarily. Taken onbard other tweaks - gone for CON 17 and 10d8+30 for 75hp.

Well we could have a single AC for a generic Dragon Warrior and give it a Variants entry with the ACs and immunities of specific colors/metals of Warrior.

Maybe just pick a particular Dragon as the fang-parent of the sample Dragon Warrior like, say, a Brass Dragon.

If we do go for one AC I'd prefer 17 over 18.

None of the Medium sized Wyrmling in the SRD have AC 18, they're all either 16 or 17 and the Young Dragons are 17 or 18, putting 17 neatly in the middle.

I tend to agree with AC being a "constant" rather than changing as per that of the parent dragon. The differences can be huge in 2E (somewhat less so in 5E, I've seen) and this thread has got me thinking about my 2E conversion and I've decided to go for a "stable" AC by having all dragon warriors have an AC as a 2E Very Young dragon, regardless of the age of the parent dragon.
1E didn't have a changing AC for dragons and 1E dragon ACs became those for 2E Very Young dragons (mostly). In fact, I suppose it could be argued that variable ACs per dragon type for dragon warriors would sort of deviate from the original.
Using the AC of 2E Very Young dragons will still lead to dragon warriors from different parent dragons having their own AC, but that was also true for the original dragon warriors.
I wouldn't know which 5E AC to choose, though.

The problem is not so much what the age category is, but that it had the AC of any standard dragon.

We were going for adjacent age categories, so the difference will only be a point of AC in 2E or 5E.

In 5E the different types of chromatic/metallic dragons don't vary that much in Armour Class (see table), especially at the younger ages. There's a difference of a point of AC at Wyrmling, Young and Adult ages (e.g. Brass vs Red a hatchling Brass is AC 16, a Red AC 17), but at Ancient the difference can be up to two points of AC (White & Brass Ancients have AC 20; Green & Copper Ancients AC 21; Black, Blue, Red, Bronze & Gold have AC 22).

Fifth Edition Dragons

Dragon​	Wyrmling​	Young​	Adult​	Ancient​
Black	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 22
Blue	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 22
Green	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 21
Red	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 22
White	AC 16	AC 17	AC 18	AC 20
Brass	AC 16	AC 17	AC 18	AC 20
Bronze	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 22
Copper	AC 16	AC 17	AC 18	AC 21
Gold	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 22
Silver	AC 17	AC 18	AC 19	AC 22

However, in earlier editions (1E to 3E) a True Dragon kept the same AC relationship to other types across its entire age range.

If an AD&D or 3E Brass Dragon had X higher AC than a Red Dragon as a Hatchling it still had X higher AC when it had reached Ancient or Great Wyrm status.

In AD&D the Armour Classes had a range of six steps: In 1E the standard dragons went from AC 3 Black/White to AC –2 Gold, in 2E they went from AC 1 Black/Copper/White to AC –4 Gold.

Remember that 1E True Dragons have the same AC at all ages, while 2E True Dragons had AC that also varied with age.

If we were being true to the original monster the AC should differ for Dragon Warriors created from Dragons with better/worse AC and the difference can be quite substantial.

Hmm… I'm starting to think we should have entries for multiple different Dragon Warrior, one for each colour and metal of the standard dragon types.

 

[Cleon]

The movement issue is a vexing one. I'd be happier with 20ft movement if it had some other combat option that gave it extra manouevring to surprise opponents. Was musing on Fighter Student of War Maneuvers such as Brace, Riposte, Parry, or some other moving thing. Otherwise it's just cannon fodder.

Wouldn't some sort of Multiattack be enough?

Short version? No.

The problem is the Dragon Warrior has no ranged attacks.

If it faces a faster opponent who can attack at range, even if it's only someone chucking stones for 1d4 bludgeoning damage, then their enemy can just whittle down the DW's hit points without any risk of injury.

It doesn't matter how many times the Warrior can swing its broadsword at an opponent if said sword can't reach its target!

Giving it Speed 30 ft. (the same speed as a STR 18 humanoid in scale armour in 5E, so it's perfectly justifiable) at least puts it at the same mobility as a standard humanoid opponent.

Alternatively, or in addition to Speed 30 ft., we could add a distance attack.

Either a conventional ranged weapon (bow, crossbow, javelin etc.) or a special attack based on the dragon parent's breath weapon. So a Brass Dragon Warrior might, say, spit fire every few rounds at a single target for some appropriate amount of damage.

I'd aim to make any distance option less effective than melee, since these were originally close-combat-only fighters, but I wouldn't mind the option. It also makes them a bit weirder and helps justify my preferred type of Monstrosity.

 

[Cleon]

Hmm… I'm starting to think we should have entries for multiple different Dragon Warrior, one for each colour and metal of the standard dragon types.

If we go that route and have separate entries for the different types, the Armour Class could vary by a fair bit since we aren't constrained by keeping them at the same AC.

I'd lean towards using the three step spread of the 5E Ancient Dragons, with the weaker ones AC 16 and the stronger ones AC 18, but I guess we could go crazy and use the six step spread of the AD&D original and have Dragon Warriors go from AC 15 to 20. Those are still within the Armour Class ranges of the standard Dragons.

 

[Casimir Liber]

shadow dancer updated

"Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense — frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don’t fit into any other type." - when it says not truly natural, it implies a creature that sort-of has a biology, such as an owlbear or medusa, that breathes and eats.

"Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs shaped from the raw material of the plane by the will of more powerful creatures." - they are not born but created from teeth, and are nonintelligent in the DnD version (though not original myth). Happy to drop some immunities as I vuew them organic - I see them as made of a tooth-like substance with scales, and a claw-like sword and large scale-like shield

Prefer to give them 30 ft movement then if that is the most realistic option.

Alot of options for AC. if we all insist on mulitple ACs, maybe make 3 different related to parent dragon age...rather than....alot....?