Converting Greyhawk monsters

[Cleon]

A regular otyugh doesn't have just goods, and neither do the neo and lifeleech otyughs. Given that and the creature's schtick, it should have more treasure than just its teeth.

In their original AD&D incarnation Otyughs and Neo-Otyughs had no interest in treasure, if they had any valuables near them these were usually items thrown in the rubbish or, occasionally, stuff the Otyugh's "patrons" had asked them to guard for them.

What treasure were you proposing for them, anyway?

 

[GrayLinnorm]

See above.

 

[Cleon]

See above.

I'm hoping for something more specific than "more treasure than just its teeth".

 

[Shade]

I vote Cha 10, Standard treasure, and I'm still not fond of reducing enhancement bonuses (despite what the original says...we have more options to soften in 3e anway to offset the need for it).

 

[Cleon]

I vote Cha 10, Standard treasure, and I'm still not fond of reducing enhancement bonuses (despite what the original says...we have more options to soften in 3e anway to offset the need for it).

I'm OK with Charisma 10.

The diamond teeth should stay, so how about Standard treasure plus triple goods (gems only)?

I prefer the enhancement-reducing Soften, but I would probably tolerate it if both you and Freyar insist.

 

[freyar]

I like Cha 10 and standard coins, standard items, triple goods (gems only).

The original monster can't reduce DR (for example, it says nothing about making it easier to damage lycanthropes with non-silver weapons), so I think that's a fair trade for it not reducing an enhancement bonus. Besides, why should "softening" something change its magical properties? Frankly, I'd prefer to replace "any damage reduction that is bypassed by any mundane material" by "any extraordinary (not supernatural) damage reduction," but I can't tell by RAW if those two statements are different.

Since the teeth are diamonds, shouldn't the bite bypass a small amount of hardness?

 

[Cleon]

I like Cha 10 and standard coins, standard items, triple goods (gems only).

Works for me!

The original monster can't reduce DR (for example, it says nothing about making it easier to damage lycanthropes with non-silver weapons), so I think that's a fair trade for it not reducing an enhancement bonus. Besides, why should "softening" something change its magical properties? Frankly, I'd prefer to replace "any damage reduction that is bypassed by any mundane material" by "any extraordinary (not supernatural) damage reduction," but I can't tell by RAW if those two statements are different.

Actually, under 1st edition AD&D rules any monster with 10+4 HD or more can strike anything up to "+4 or better to hit" (see Creatures Struck Only By Magic Weapons, Dungeon Masters Guide, page 75). Thus an 18 HD Aurotyugh can ignore a lycanthropes' special defense against weapons in AD&D.

Since the teeth are diamonds, shouldn't the bite bypass a small amount of hardness?

Wouldn't that make its softening attack a bit pointless? Why soften a target's hardness if its bite just ignores it!

 

[freyar]

Its natural weapons could ignore the lycanthrope's DR, but it couldn't soften it so that other creatures can avoid the DR without appropriate weapons.

Nah, I'd suggest only ignoring a little bit of hardness. Softening helps it get to that point.

 

[Shade]

It appears you are outnumbered on the matter of reducing enhancement bonuses, Cleon.

Time to roll out the Cleon Special (TM).

 

[Cleon]

Its natural weapons could ignore the lycanthrope's DR, but it couldn't soften it so that other creatures can avoid the DR without appropriate weapons.

Nah, I'd suggest only ignoring a little bit of hardness. Softening helps it get to that point.

But AD&D didn't use DR, so that argument seems void. It does explicitly say the soften can effective reduce the magical plus of armour, which means it works against enhancement bonuses in 3E terms.