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

Cleon

Legend
I'll post the original text, although I think we all have it to hand already:

Cyclops
By Albie Fiore

No. Appearing:2–20
Armour class:6
Movement:12″
Hit Dice:6D8
Treasure:Individuals M(x10) D in lair
Attack:2 claws, 1D6 each, 1 bite, 2D6, plus hypnotic stare
Alignment:Chaotic evil
Monstermark:240 (level VIII in 12 levels)

Cyclops can be found in almost any terrain, including underground complexes. They habitually dwell in caves. They are frequently found in control of a group of orcs, gnolls, svarts, goblins or hobgoblins that they dominate because of their ferocity and strength. They are innate foes of humankind and continually raid villages for females and food.
  If ten or more are encountered there is one who will be a leader type (7 hit dice and attacking at +2 to hit and +3 damage).
  The cyclops’ single eye affects victims as hypnotic pattern and any failing to save will stand immobilised for 6 melee rounds: the cyclops can only stare at one individual per melee round at a maximum range of 6″, and each victim can only be ‘stared’ once.
  If encountered in their lair, there will be an additional 20% young (3 hit dice, armour class 7, 3 attacks, 1–3/1–3/1–6, no hypnotic stare).
  The cyclops’ eye handicaps it in combat so that it strikes at –1. It similarly hurls missiles at –2 but it gains +2 on saves vs illusory magic.
  Cyclops eat human flesh, though they prefer halfling, as well as gnomes, dwarves and elves. They dislike man-orc which they leave for scavengers. They will always attempt to capture any human females for purposes of reproduction (see below). Consequently in any lair, there will be 1–6 pregnant female humans, and a 10% chance of live prisoners being kept for food.
  Cyclops speak their own language as well as that of orcs, gnolls, swarts, goblins, hobgoblin and ogre.
  The cyclops is 9′ tall. Its skin is a dull weathered tan, while its clumps of straggly hair are greenish black. It has powerful arms, clawed hands and a large, wide maw with which it can inflict horrendous bites. Its eye is a clear sea-green.
Hybrids: There are no female cyclops — possibly due to genetic deficiencies. They do, however, reproduce with human females which they have captured and will devour after childbirth. The children of this unholy union are cyclops (40%), human but with a single eye (30%) and normal (?) human (30%). Of these the normal human is devoured with the mother; the cyclops becomes one of the group; and the cyclopian human is cast out to fend for him/herself. These hybrids are usually above average strength and constitution although they suffer the same penalties in combat (except vs. dwarves and gnomes) as the cyclops. They also receive the cyclops’ bonus against visual illusory spells. These half-breeds are believed to have established a hidden kingdom somewhere on a high plateau. They are known as Amiraspians, High Plainsmen or Griffon Riders, though little is known of them.​

Originally appeared in White Dwarf #21 (“Fiend Factory - One-Eye Canyon” by Albie Fiore, October/November 1980).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ilgatto

How inconvenient
You think we should go for 5E Large instead of Huge considering they, erm... violate human women? Or are we going to leave the violating women out because, erm... "offensive"?
 

Cleon

Legend
OK. So looks like we're faced with the choice of making the WD21 cyclops either more like "giants" (even if they would become Fey) or more like "humanoids"?

So one could argue that the Dragon Warriors in the same article and the reference to the Arimaspi [sic] would make them lesser cyclops in the 1E sense of the word and thus "giants", while the actual description (tan skin, black-green hair, sea-green eye, interaction with goblins, et al.) would seem to favor a "humanoid" approach?

I think I'm starting to lean towards the "humanoid" approach (because of their violent behavior to women) as opposed to going Greek {erm..., no pun intended).
But I guess they could still be giant-sized as 5E giants, then? And not humanoid-sized as the questionable 2E cyclopskin?
Note that the WD21 cyclops appeared before giants and similar creatures got a bump in 2E so maybe we shouldn't take he WD21 size as canon?
Ah. OK. So the 4E D&D version of what is also known as the "Realm of Faerie" in English myth and legend.
So if we make the particularly evil WD21 cyclops Fey, maybe we can somehow link them to the spriggans of Faerie myth, which featured in 1E an 2E as particularly evil?

Well they're 9 feet tall, so these Cyclopes are definitely bigger than a regular humanoid, or even an extra-large one like a goliath.

That's the minimum height of an Ogre in both 2E and 1E AD&D, so it could be a Large giant.

I'd be fine with making them Large fey, and in some ways I prefer that: it helps differentiate them from a regular giant cyclops. Heck, I'd accept Large monstrosity if you'd prefer, but I think I spent my monstrosity card on the Dragon Warriors!

Equally importantly, what are we going to call it?

Just leaving the name Cyclops won't help distinguish them from the legions of other one-eyed giants with D&D stats.

Some of their one-eyed humanoid offspring are known as Amiraspians, so we could call it an Amiraspi or Amiraspian Cyclops.

Or we could have some reference to their power (Hypnotic Cyclops? Mesmeric Cyclops?), preferred habitat (Cave Cyclops?) or the "One-Eye Canyon" title of the adventure (although Canyon Cyclops would conflict with the first line of the description: "Cyclops can be found in almost any terrain, including underground complexes."
 

ilgatto

How inconvenient
Well they're 9 feet tall, so these Cyclopes are definitely bigger than a regular humanoid, or even an extra-large one like a goliath.

That's the minimum height of an Ogre in both 2E and 1E AD&D, so it could be a Large giant.
That sounds awkward to me [checking], regardless of the fact that a 5E ogre actually is a Large giant.
I'd be fine with making them Large fey, and in some ways I prefer that: it helps differentiate them from a regular giant cyclops. Heck, I'd accept Large monstrosity if you'd prefer, but I think I spent my monstrosity card on the Dragon Warriors!
:ROFLMAO:
Equally importantly, what are we going to call it?

Just leaving the name Cyclops won't help distinguish them from the legions of other one-eyed giants with D&D stats.

Some of their one-eyed humanoid offspring are known as Amiraspians, so we could call it an Amiraspi or Amiraspian Cyclops.

Or we could have some reference to their power (Hypnotic Cyclops? Mesmeric Cyclops?), preferred habitat (Cave Cyclops?) or the "One-Eye Canyon" title of the adventure (although Canyon Cyclops would conflict with the first line of the description: "Cyclops can be found in almost any terrain, including underground complexes."
I think Amiraspian cyclops would be out of the question if we're going for fey.

Fey Cyclops? Or would that clash with them being "Fey" if we go for that?

EDIT: Fioric Cyclops after Hesiodic and Homeric Cyclopes? Naah...
 

Cleon

Legend
You think we should go for 5E Large instead of Huge considering they, erm... violate human women? Or are we going to leave the violating women out because, erm... "offensive"?

Definitely Large as they're 9 feet tall. That's Ogre size, not Hill Giant size.

As for the violating, I'd be inclined to mention it but keep it relatively tasteful.
 

ilgatto

How inconvenient
Definitely Large as they're 9 feet tall. That's Ogre size, not Hill Giant size.

As for the violating, I'd be inclined to mention it but keep it relatively tasteful.
Large it is. In my mind, this could also free us from the notion that they have to be called "cyclops", but that is a matter of opinion.

One-Eyes?
 

Cleon

Legend
Fey Cyclops? Or would that clash with them being "Fey" if we go for that?

I'd rather not include "fey" in the name as (a) it's a monster type so has a game mechanical meaning, and (b) there's no mention of fey or fairies in the original text. The closest is the goblins and hobgoblins it sometimes controls, but while in Ye Actual Olde Englishe folklore those are Fey, in D&D they are mundane humanoids.

How about Eldritch Cyclops?
 

ilgatto

How inconvenient
I'd rather not include "fey" in the name as (a) it's a monster type so has a game mechanical meaning, and (b) there's no mention of fey or fairies in the original text. The closest is the goblins and hobgoblins it sometimes controls, but while in Ye Actual Olde Englishe folklore those are Fey, in D&D they are mundane humanoids.

How about Eldritch Cyclops?
Hmm... Unearthly, supernatural, eerie, preternatural. I'd say no, also because, for me, it has links to Lovecraft, Ashton Smith, heck, Gygax, even (Tharizdun; Temple of the Eye). And I definitely do not associate the WD21 cyclops with these people.
 

Cleon

Legend
Large it is. In my mind, this could also free us from the notion that they have to be called "cyclops", but that is a matter of opinion.

One-Eyes?

Monopticons!

I guess you could use a literal translation of Cyclops and call it a Circle-Eye, Round-Eye or possibly a Wheel-Eye if you want to reverse-stretch the definition backwards from a bicycle.
 

Cleon

Legend
Hmm... Unearthly, supernatural, eerie, preternatural. I'd say no, also because, for me, it has links to Lovecraft, Ashton Smith, heck, Gygax, even (Tharizdun; Temple of the Eye). And I definitely do not associate the WD21 cyclops with these people.

Well they seem pretty spooky and unnatural to me, and it might also derive from "elf" who could appear as strange and ghastly beings in old myths.

You mentioned spriggans, well they and things like redcaps and other murderous fey could be considered "eldritch" in the weird and unnatural creature sense.

Also, you've got "Temple of the Eye" up there and you're telling me it's NOT appropriate for a Cyclops. :p
 

Remove ads

Top