Corrections to Monsters in the CC

Cleon

Hero
Well I started a Queue of Pending CC Corrections and 3.5 Upgrades thread, but there's some bug that means the only thread prefix available was "Review". I tried "(No prefix)" but just got "Oops! We ran into some problems. Please select a prefix."

I guess I'll just have to wait until a "(No prefix)" or "3.5" prefix is available again so I can edit the thread to a more appropriate prefix.

I've gone through Corrections to Monsters in the CC and added all the Pending Corrections I could find to the Update Queue.

I'm sure there's other CC monsters we've said we should upgrade from 3.0 to 3.5 or create new revised entries for, but I'm not inclined to wade through all our threads searching for them!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Cleon

Hero
In my index of CC, which is not the latest but I noticed the 3.5 Krakentua, while at CR 30, has an AC of 16?! That can't be correct could it?

I answered this in the Oriental Adventures thread, but it would make sense to have any discussion of the issue here since we're in the middle of a Conversion on that thread.

It was an overly literal transcription of the original AD&D monster's AC 4, which is the same as a suit of chainmail & shield so hence AC 16 in 3E.

I'll agree that so low an AC is hardly Challenge Rating appropriate, but bear in mind that the Krakentua originally appeared in adventures meant for 4th to 9th level characters - namely 1986's OA2 Night of the Seven Swords (4th to 6th level) and 1989's OA7 Test of the Samurai (6th to 9th level) so if it had a decent AC for its level they would have no chance of hurting it if they're foolish enough to resort to weapons (they're supposed to use role-playing or magic macguffins do deal with the things).

So arguably the low AC is more of a feature than a bug.

That said, I'm not that enamored of the Krakentua conversion - the original 3.0 version was before my time at the Creature Catalog and the 3.5 version is pretty much an edition update of it. If it had been me statting the thing up it'd likely be quite different!

For a start, that Challenge Rating is too high for its stats. A Great Wyrm Dragon or the Tarrasque would likely make mincemeat of one of these fellows.

I'd also likely downgrade the weapon use so it's wielding Humanoid-scale weapons in its tentacles like the original monster (which did a Medium katana's 1d10 base damage with weapons, not the 4d6 of a Colossal wakizashi). At least that means PCs could loot usable arms should they manage to defeat the thing!
 

Cleon

Hero
I answered this in the Oriental Adventures thread, but it would make sense to have any discussion of the issue here since we're in the middle of a Conversion on that thread.

Looking at the current 3.5 conversion of the Krakentua I notice a couple of out-and-out errors apart from the questionable Armour Class issue.

The female krakentua has saving throws of Fort +32, Ref +20, Will +34.

However it's a 50 HD Aberration with Dex 11, Con 32, Wis 25 and the Lightning Reflexes and Epic Reflexes feats, so those should be:

Fortitude (weak) = +16 from HD, +11 from Con 32 => Fort +27
Reflex (weak) = +16 from HD, +0 from Dex 11, +6 feats => Ref +22
Will (strong) = +27 from HD, +7 from Wis 25 => Fort +34

So two of its saves are wrong! The male's saves are also in error:

Fortitude (weak) = +16 from HD, +9 from Con 28 => Fort +25
Reflex (weak) = +16 from HD, +0 from Dex 11, +6 feats => Ref +22
Will (strong) = +27 from HD, +8 from Wis 27 => Fort +35

By the way, I have no idea why we gave the Male Krakentua 2 points more Wisdom than the female. It has no precedent in the AD&D sources as far as I can tell.

There is a second problem. The krakentua has Multiweapon Fighting as a normal feat, but Multiweapon Fighting has a prerequisite of "Dex 13, three or more hands" and the Krakentua's Dexterity is only 11. Oops!

We could fix that error by making Multiweapon Fighting a bonus feat and giving it yet another normal feat - I'd favour Improved Multiattack so it can punch without penalty.

Speaking of punching, I'm not enamoured of the slam attacks only doing 2d6 damage. The original OA2 Krakentua could punch for 4-40 damage, so I was thinking 6d8 or 8d8 would be a more appropriate slam damage.

Oh, and it still feels a bit underpowered for Challenge Rating 30. It reads more like a mid-20s CR, maybe even low-20s due to its pathetic AC and poor defenses.

How well would one fare in a fight against, say, CR20 Balors or CR23 Solars? If it really is CR30 it should steamroll several balors.

Let's see, a balor making an 11-point Power Attack has a 50% change of hitting the krakentua's AC 16 with the weakest iteration attack from its +1 vorpal longsword's +31/+26/+21/+16 melee. (+6–11 is +5 melee, so an 11+ roll is needed to hit 16+).

Of that 50%, 10% are potential criticals of which 5% are potential vorpal criticals, so:

45% normal hits (average damage 11)[2d6+13 +11 power attack –20 krak's DR]
2.5% normal critical hit (average damage 42)[4d6+26 +22 –20]
2.5% vorpal critical hit [average damage death by decapitation!]

The +21 melee attack has a 75% of hitting, so:

67.5% normal hits (average damage 11)[2d6+13 +11 power attack –20 krak's DR]
3.75% normal critical hit (average damage 42)[4d6+26 +22 –20]
3.75% vorpal critical hit [average damage death by decapitation!]

And the +26 and +31 melee attacks have a 95% chance (due to the miss-on-1 rule):

85.5% normal hits (average damage 11)[2d6+13 +11 power attack –20 krak's DR]
4.75% normal critical hit (average damage 42)[4d6+26 +22 –20]
4.75% vorpal critical hit [average damage death by decapitation!]

The +25 and +30 attacks of its +1 flaming whip also have a 95% chance:

90.25% normal hits (average damage 3)[1d4+6+1d6 fire +11 –20]
4.75% normal critical hit (average damage 26)[2d4+12+2d6 fire +22 –20]

So if my sums are right, a single full attack from a Balor (with 11-points of Power Attack) will do an average damage of 43.9525 hit points [2.835×11 + 0.1575×42 + 1.805×3 + 0.095×26 = 36.0675 + 7.885] to a Male Krakentua plus a 14.8596712890625% chance of vorpal death [100% minus the odds of all its attack failing to vorpal, which is a hundred times 1–(0.975×0.9625×0.9525×0.9525) = 1–0.851403287109375 = 0.148596712890625].

So there's almost a 15% chance of it just autoslaying the krakentua.

A male krakentua can 95% hit a Balor's AC 35 with its +43 melee wakizashas. However, it cannot use Power Attack because wakizashas are light weapons.

So for the primary wakizasha that's:

85.5% normal hits (average damage 14)[4d6+15 –15 balor's DR]
9.5% critical hit (average damage 43)[8d6+30 –15]

Hold on, there's an error here. Shouldn't the primary wakizasha be an iterative attack rather than a single one? So the Full Attack line ought to go "or wakizashi +43/+38/+33/+28 melee (4d6+15/19-20) and 6 wakizashis +43 melee (4d6+7/19-20) and 2 slams +42 melee (2d6+7)"?

Never mind for now, I prefer it a single attack anyway!

The six secondary wakizasha's are:

85.5% normal hits (average damage 6*)[4d6+7 –15 balor's DR]
9.5% critical hit (average damage 37)[8d6+14 –15]
*the actual average damage is slightly higher than 6 since I didn't adjust for negative results being 0 damage (i.e. a roll of 7 or less on the 4d6–8 damage).

It'd definitely be better off using its tentacles with a 12-point Power Attack, which is just enough for a 95% hit chance.

90.25% normal hits (average damage 19)[2d6+15 +12 –15 balor's DR]
4.75% critical hit (average damage 53)[4d6+30 +24 –15]

The two slams need a 5+ to hit with that Power Attack, for an 80% hit chance:

76% normal hits (average damage 11)[2d6+7 +12 –15]
4% critical hit (average damage 37)[4d6+14 +24 –15]

So a single full attack from a Krakentua Male (with 12-points of Power Attack) will do an average damage of 157.335 hit points [7×(0.9025×19 + 0.0475×53) plus 2×(0.76×14 + 0.04×37) = 7×(17.1475 + 2.5175) plus 2×(8.36 + 1.48) = 7×(19.665) + 2×(9.84) = 137.655 + 19.68] to a Balor, so would need around two rounds to bring a Balor down to negative hit points from its 290 hit point maximum.

By contrast, a balor making two full attacks with 11-point power attacks will do around 88 hit points of damage to a krakentua but has a roughly 27.5% chance of Vorpalling it to death [1 minus the square of 0.851403287109375].

Indeed, a full-attacking balor would be better off reducing the Power Attack to 2 points to maximize its chance of critting with its vorpal longsword to 4.75% for all eight of the attacks - giving it about a 32.25% chance of vorpal decapitation [1 minus 0.9525 to the eighth power, or 1–0.67751649758197765844879150390625].

However, the Balor would be FAR better off using its flight and greater teleport powers to make hit-and-run attacks. It'd be way better off exchanging standard attacks with the krakentua than staying in one place long enough to receive a full attack.

Wielding its longsword two-handed for an extra 50% strength bonus and applying 19 points of Power Attack so its +33 melee has a 95% chance of hitting the krakentua's AC 16:

85.5% normal hits (average damage 21)[2d6+25 +19 power attack –20 krak's DR]
4.75% normal critical hit (average damage 82)[4d6+50 +38 –20]
4.75% vorpal critical hit [average damage death by decapitation!]

That's an average of 21.85 damage [0.855×21 + 0.0475×82 = 17.955+3.895] with a 4.75% change of Mr Squidhead becoming Mr Squidheadless.

By contrast, the best the krakentua can do is a single Power Attacking tentacle slap for 19.665 average damage.

At that rate, it'd take a krakentua fifteen rounds to slap a balor to death, during which time it'll be slashed down to roughly half its 675 hit points of damage (average damage from fifteen power-attacking 2H longsword blows by the Balor being ~327). However, fifteen attacks have a 51.8% chance of vorpal fatality.

That means that TWO balors would be almost certain to kill a male krakentua from damage or decapitation.

A Solar however would simply slaughter a krakentua, if only because it has regeneration that a standard krakentua has no way to overcome, so even if it does manage to bring its angelic opponent down to minus 10 hit points the Solar would simply get up again (plus it has 3/day heal). That's unlikely to happen since a Solar will just fly out of tentacle reach and rain down arrows of slaying until the krakentua is dead. Aalthough the DC 20 slaying effect is useless against the Fort +32 male krakentua and the arrows will only do 14 average damage a hit (or 42 on a critical), a krakentua has no way to shoot back.

Yes, that's definitely looking more like a CR 22 to 24 than a CR 30 to me. Not that Epic Level Challenge Ratings are an exact science.

Might compare it to a few weak Epic Level Handbook Monsters and see how it rates, not that they are at all balanced!

Lets see, the Elder Treant has the same Hit Dice as a Krakentua and is significantly tougher in some of its stats (1,145 hp, AC 41, +51 melee) but is only CR 25.

EDIT: oh and the Treant's +51 melee slam can 95% hit the krakentua even if its Power Attack is maxed out to 37 points!

85.5% normal hits (average damage 71)[10d6+19 +37 –20 krak's DR]
9.5% critical hit (average damage 167.5)[21d6+38 +76 –20]

That's an average of 76.6175 damage [0.855×71 + 0.095×167.5 = 60.705+15.9125], or 153.235 it it full-attacks with both slams.

The best Power Attack against an Elder Treant a Krakentua can do is 4 points with its Tentacle slaps:

90.25% normal hits (average damage 16)[2d6+15 +4 –10 treant's DR]
4.75% critical hit (average damage 42)[4d6+30 +8 –10]

The two slams need a 5+ to hit with that Power Attack, for an 80% hit chance:

76% normal hits (average damage 3*)[2d6+7 +4 –15]
4% critical hit (average damage 26)[4d6+14 +8 –15]
*the actual average damage is slightly higher than 6 since I didn't adjust for negative results being 0 damage (i.e. a roll of 7 or less on the 4d6–8 damage).

So that's an average of 16.435 for a single slap [0.9025×16 + 0.0475×42 = 14.44+1.995] or 121.685 for a full attack [7×(16.435) plus 2×(0.76×3 + 0.04×26) = 115.045 + 2×(2.28+1.04) = 115.045 + 2×(3.32) = 115.045+6.64].
 
Last edited:

Cleon

Hero
So that's an average of 16.435 for a single slap [0.9025×16 + 0.0475×42 = 14.44+1.995] or 121.685 for a full attack [7×(16.435) plus 2×(0.76×3 + 0.04×26) = 115.045 + 2×(2.28+1.04) = 115.045 + 2×(3.32) = 115.045+6.64].

So maybe CR 24 for a Male and 25 for a Female Krak?

[EDIT]I think that's enough for the time being![/EDIT]
 
Last edited:

freyar

Extradimensional Explorer
Yeah, I'd be ok with revising the CR down to those values. Maybe it would make sense to raise the AC a bit too.

These are really old conversions! Like before I started out, which is quite a while ago!
 

Cleon

Hero
Yeah, I'd be ok with revising the CR down to those values.

I'm not that fussed about it to be honest, and would be fine leaving it alone for the time being.

If we do an update we might as well make it a full revision for the Kraken thread and tackle the Krakentua Spawn and Tentacle from OA7 at the same time. There seems no hurry though.

Maybe it would make sense to raise the AC a bit too.

I think I'd keep the "squishiness" and make the low AC a bug rather than a feature. It allows mid-level heroes and the KSDF (Kara-tur Self-Defense Forces) catapults to be able to put a dent in it.

Speaking of which, the original monster didn't have the AD&D equivalent of damage reduction (no "+# weapon to hit" or "half damage from # weapons" or the like), which'd argue for the 3.5 version not having it either.

That'd definitely merit it having a low Challenge Rating!

These are really old conversions! Like before I started out, which is quite a while ago!

Yes, it's from 2005 which is a year before you joined Enworld and two years before I joined.

That increases my preference for doing any corrections as a separate entry called "Krakentua (revised)" or the like, since we had nothing to do with the original version.

Besides, we've got a whole bunch of other correction issues queued up on this thread to deal with and I'd like to do them in order only so I don't completely lose track of the things.
 


Cleon

Hero
After starting the Mayfair Monsters thread I glanced through a few of the conversions we did and spotted a slight error in one.

The Valet Droid had 1 Hit Dice but its advancement is "3-6 HD (Medium)".

Obviously it ought to start at 2 HD, so should presumably be "2-6 HD (Medium)" - I'm fine keeping the advancement all Medium rather than making it, say, "2-3 HD (Medium); 4-6 HD (Large)" to allow for centaur-sized robobutlers.

Although a centaur robovalet is an alluring idea, especially considering the "Masters" who created the Fez series droids were centauroid aliens…

I'm tempted to edit in the following Cleon Special™ Bonus:

Variant Valet Droids
Bigger and smaller models of valet droid exist, as well as particularly expensive top-of-the-range models with advanced Hit Dice, increased special abilities and the elite ability array. Examples of these follow:

Large Valet Droid (Large Construct; Hit Dice: 2d10+30 (41 hp); Init: +0; Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares); AC: 15 (-1 size, +6 natural), touch 9, flat-footed 15; Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+8; Attack: Slam -2 melee (1d4+1); Full Attack: Slam -2 melee (1d4+1); Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft. [Tall] or 10 ft./5 ft. [Long]; Special Qualities: Construct traits, data slots, radiospeech, robot traits; Saves: Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +0; Abilities: Str 16, Dex 10, Con —, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 11; CR: 1; Advancement: 3-8 HD [Large])

Skills & Feats: Heal +5, Sense Motive +8, plus crystal card skills (typically Craft [any one] +3, Diplomacy +3, Profession [any one] +4); Feats: Skill Focus (Sense Motive)

Large Valet Droids can be divided into Long models (such as centauroids) and Tall models (such as ogroids) depending on the bodyshape of the creature they are modeled after.

Small Valet Droid (Small Construct; Hit Dice: 1d10+10 (15 hp); Init: +0; Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares); AC: 14 (+1 size, +3 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 14; Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-5; Attack: Slam -5 melee (1d2-1); Full Attack: Slam -5 melee (1d2-1); Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.; Special Qualities: Construct traits, data slots, radiospeech, robot traits; Saves: Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +0; Abilities: Str 8, Dex 10, Con —, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 11; CR: 1/6; Advancement: 2-4 HD [Small])

Skills & Feats: Heal +4, Sense Motive +7, plus crystal card skills (typically Craft [any one] +3, Diplomacy +3, Profession [any one] +4); Feats: Skill Focus (Sense Motive)

Luxury Valet Droid (Medium Construct; Hit Dice: 6d10+20 (53 hp); Init: +1; Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares); AC: 15 (+1 Dex, +4 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 14; Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+5; Attack: Slam +5 melee (1d3+1); Full Attack: 2 slams +5 melee (1d3+1); Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.; Special Qualities: Construct traits, advanced data slots, radarsight, radiospeech, robot traits; Saves: Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +4; Abilities: Str 12, Dex 12, Con —, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 18; CR: 2; Advancement: None)

Skills & Feats: Diplomacy +18, Heal +14, Gather Information +13, Sense Motive +14, plus crystal card skills (typically Craft [any one] +10, Perform [any one] +12, Profession [any one] +10, Speak Language [eight additional languages]); Feats: Skill Focus (Diplomacy, Heal, Sense Motive)

Unlike normal models, a luxury valet droid's slam attacks are normal attacks. Luxury valets generally have radarsight and advanced data slots able to fit up to four crystal cards that may hold 8 extra skill points each in any Dex-, Int-, Wis-, or Cha-based skill (see Warrior Droid for these abilities' descriptions). Some luxury valet droids also have the toolmaster arms ability of a Servitor Droid or a weapon concealed in an arm or the head, generally a laser pistol like the Warrior Droid or a sleep projector and/or a light laser like the protector-variant Guardian Droid. These are often custom modifications and such droids are rare, and possibly illegal (many jurisdiction prohibit lethal weapons and thieves' tools in domestic-model droids).

EDIT: Technically it isn't a "Corrections to Monsters in the CC" issue since the Mayfair conversions are excluded from the Creature Catalog as it's an unofficial source, but here seems a logical place to post this.
 
Last edited:

Cleon

Hero
Dang it, I just realized that all our droid conversions have "Radiospeech (Ex): A creature with this ability can broadcast a radio communication as an emanation with a radius up to the listed range" but nowhere in the stats does it list a range.

Oops!

Let's see, CB Radios can have a maximum range from 1 to 5 miles for handheld versions under ideal circumstances (although in bad situations it may be as little as 100 yards), while "base station" versions can go up to 20 miles at 4 Watts of transmission power.

That seems a reasonable ballpark for the basic models. The Warrior model presumable has upgraded long-range equipment.

Let's see, a Marine VHF radio has a range of up to 100 km or so at 25 Watts.

So how about a radiospeech range of 10 miles for the ordinary droids like the Valet Droid and Servitor Droid and 50 miles for the Warrior Droid? Or maybe 20 miles and 100 miles? Perhaps some models like the Guardian Droid (or luxury valets) might have an intermediary range of 20 or 50 miles?

Of course, these are Advanced Science Fiction robots so they might have ground-to-high-orbit communicators as if they're Star Trek characters, but I'm more inclined to keep the ranges modest. Although I feel they should be better than a handheld CB radio!
 
Last edited:

Cleon

Hero
Dang it, I just realized that all our droid conversions have "Radiospeech (Ex): A creature with this ability can broadcast a radio communication as an emanation with a radius up to the listed range" but nowhere in the stats does it list a range.

Oops!

We don't have ranges listed for their radiosight special quality either.

Double Oops!
 

Cleon

Hero
We don't have ranges listed for their radiosight special quality either.

Okay, the theoretical maximum range of radio communication is proportional to the square-root of the power of the transmitter.

The range of radar detection is proportional to the fourth-root of transmitter power (i.e. the square-root of the square-root), since the radio pulse must travel to the target, bounce off, and then travel the same distance back (assuming transmitter and receiver are at the same location, which'll be the case since both are built into the robot).

There are other limiting factors - the size of the dish, quality of pathway, line-of-sight, horizon, et cetera which'll likely reduce the radarsight range still further.

So the radarsight range should be some fraction of the square-root of the radiospeech range (assuming they both use the same signal power). That might be a bit too complicated if it requires the DM to pull out a calculator to figure out if an enemy's radiospeech can "hear" the radar. Especially since the droid could presumably lower its radar power to shorten its range. Some kind of ratio might be more in order, like the radarsight has a range of X feet per Y miles of radiospeech range.

Maybe 30 feet for every 10 miles? Then if we give the robots 20 mile, 50 mile and 100 mile radiospeech, their radarsight would be 60 feet, and 150 feet and 300 feet. That's the distance at which it can clearly distinguish shapes, it could probably detect the presence of a large object out to considerably larger distances, say a maximum of, say, one-twentieth the radiospeech range? So one mile, 2½ miles and 5 miles.

Guardian Droid & Luxury Valet Droid: radarsight 150 ft. [max 2½ mile, detectable 50 miles], radiospeech 50 miles
Servitor Droid: radiospeech 20 miles [if it had radarsight it'd be "radarsight 60 ft. [max 1 mile, detectable 20 miles]"]
Valet Droid:
radiospeech 20 miles
Warrior Droid: radarsight 300 ft. [max 5 mile, detectable 100 miles], radiospeech 100 miles

I also propose the following tweaks to the Special Qualities:

Radarsight (Ex): This droid possesses sophisticated microwave radar, allowing it to "see" the shape of objects and creatures. Radarsight ignores concealment caused by darkness, fog or clouds. Invisibility provides total concealment against radarsight, although the droid may still make Spot checks to notice the location of an invisible opponent. Rain has the same effect on radarsight as it does normal vision. Unlike radiospeech, normal radarsight requires line of sight and cannot extend "over the horizon".

Radarsight cannot discern colors and any object or texture smaller than a quarter of an inch will just be a foggy blur. The listed range is the maximum distance radarsight can clearly distinguish shapes. It can detect the presence of objects at longer ranges - out to a maximum of one mile for every 60 ft. of range for extremely big objects such as hills and titanic buildings or creatures - but can't identify their shapes. So it might register the presence of a mountain giant a few thousand feet away with an appropriate Spot skill check, but it couldn't tell the Colossal moving object has a humanoid shape.

A creature using radarsight stands out to radarsight or radiospeech like someone walking around in the dark while shouting and waving a bullseye lantern about. They are detectable out to a maximum distance of 10 miles for every 30 ft. of radarsight range, but this distance is reduced by the same factors that can interfere with radiospeech. A Spot check is still necessary for a radio-sensitive creature to notice a radarsight source, but it has a +10 circumstance bonus.

Radiospeech (Ex): A creature with this ability can broadcast a radio communication with a radius up to the listed range (the creature can use less than its maximum range if it wishes to). All creature with radiospeech that are within range hears the communication, so it is possible to address many creatures at once using radiospeech, although maintaining a conversation with more than one creature at a time is as difficult as speaking with multiple people simultaneously. Radiospeech relies on words, so two creatures must understand the same language to communicate by radiospeech. Some items can listen to or broadcast radiospeech, allowing creatures without this ability to participate in radiospeech conversations.

Radiospeech cannot penetrate 10 feet of stone or wood, three feet of water, or an inch of metal. Intervening objects and radio noise can interfere with the radio signal and reduce the range by a factor of two to twenty or more depending on how bad the interference is. Electrically conducting objects provide the worst interference. If the creature is inside a building or is surrounded by construction or metalwork their radiospeech range will be divided by a factor of at least fifty. Rainfall and terrain that's mountainous or lightly forested will likely halve the radiospeech range.
 
Last edited:

Cleon

Hero
Servitor Droid: radiospeech 20 miles [if it had radarsight it'd be "radarsight 60 ft. [max 1 mile, detectable 20 miles]"]

Hmm… I'm strongly tempted to whip up a Variant Servitor Droids subentry that includes a radarsight model.

Let's see, I could do a "Laborer" model for heavy lifting with high strength, ones with weaponisable tools (drills, saws, cutting claws, arcwelders?), ones with alternative or additional motive systems (tracks, jetpacks or electromagnetic levitation?).

I'm talking myself into doing it, aren't I!
 

freyar

Extradimensional Explorer
I actually first joined in 2005, but then my account got lost in one of the site crashes or hacks a few months later. But I didn't get involved in the CC until my second account. ;)

The tweaks to radarsight and radarspeech are fine. And I can also go for this:
Guardian Droid & Luxury Valet Droid: radarsight 150 ft. [max 2½ mile, detectable 50 miles], radiospeech 50 miles
Servitor Droid: radiospeech 20 miles [if it had radarsight it'd be "radarsight 60 ft. [max 1 mile, detectable 20 miles]"]
Valet Droid:
radiospeech 20 miles
Warrior Droid: radarsight 300 ft. [max 5 mile, detectable 100 miles], radiospeech 100 miles
 

Cleon

Hero
I actually first joined in 2005, but then my account got lost in one of the site crashes or hacks a few months later. But I didn't get involved in the CC until my second account. ;)

The tweaks to radarsight and radarspeech are fine. And I can also go for this:

Updating In Progress…
Droid, Guardian [also see "Laser Security Tank"]
Droid, Servitor
Droid, Valet
Droid, Warrior (Standard & Heavy)
…Update Process Completed.

During the update I added a " Variant Guardian Droid - Laser Security Tank" entry to the Guardian Droid and gave said LST's radarsenses four times the range of a basic guardian droid (since it is a Medium-based Gargantua with a ×4 area modifier). A house-sized droid likely has more powerful radio transmitters and bigger receivers than a man-sized one.
 



Cleon

Hero
I have a quibble to raise with the Creature Catalogue's Gigantes conversions: that name is PLURAL, the singular is Gigas, not "Gigante" as appears three times in the CC entry.

Now "Gigante" is the singular in modern Italian, Portuguese and Spanish (the Italian plural is "Giganti", although Portuguese/Spanish plural is still "Gigantes") which might account for the 2E AD&D Legends & Lore (1990), which refers to "Gigante" and "gigante", but it's definitely "Gigas" in Ancient Greek.

In any case, the CC entry has multiple uses of "Gigantes" as a singular which is flat-out wrong.

Would there be any objection to me editing the entry so all the singulars are "Gigas"?

The CC entry has inconsistent capitalization with four "Gigantes" partway through sentences that should be changed to "gigantes". Those appear to be a copy-and-paste artifact from the CC's Giant, Enceladus entry. I could sort that out while singularizing the gigas.

Come to think of it, Enceladus's entry is the only place the names of the Gigantes appear - shouldn't that be in the main intro text instead? The CC entry implies there's an entire race of gigantes and not just six, plus Greek myth mentions a lot more than six gigantes by name. Also, shouldn't the entry allow for additional giants that don't appear in Greek myth like our CC version of the Titans?

Oh, and technically neither Uranus or Gaea are Olympian Gods - they're both Primordial Deities who aren't residents of Mount Olympus.

Hmm… perhaps we could use "Gigantes" as the collective name of the original giants and "gigantes" for the non-classical version?

Currently I'd go for editing in the following:

The gigantes (singular gigas) are a race of legendary giants, the offspring of the primordial earth goddess Gaea and the sky god Uranus. According to myth, the blood of Uranus fertilized Gaea when their son Cronus the Titan castrated his father and usurped the throne. Known gigantes include Agrius, Alcyoneus, Athos, Clytias, Echion, Enceladus, Ephialtes, Eurytus, Clytius, Gration, Hippolytus, Mimas, Pallas, Polybotes, Porphyrion and Thoas. Gaea also bore giant children with other fathers, such as Antaeus the son of Poseidon. In turn, these gigantes may have gigas descendants unmentioned in mythology.​
The gigantes ultimately warred with the Olympian gods in an epic battle called the Gigantomachy, but lost to the more powerful and younger gods. As a result, most surviving gigantes hate the Olympians, and will fight against them again if given the chance.​
…​
Antaeus is a gigas son of Mother Gaia, goddess of the earth, and the Olympian sea god Poseidon.​


The enormous, malformed Enceladus (Enkelados) is one of the Gigantes, a race of giants born from the primal deities Uranus and Gaea. During the Gigantomachy, Zeus defeated Enceladus with his thunderbolts, and Athena buried him under a mountain.​

Incidentally, Hecatoncheires is also plural and was usually a collective reference to all three of the Hundred-Handed Ones. However, it appears to be acceptable modern practive to use it as a singular (i.e. "Aegaeon the Hecatoncheires") although the singular form would probably be "Hecatoncheir". At least I think that's what it'd be - it's all Greek to me!

Also, the plural of Cyclops is Cyclopes as used in the 1E AD&D version of Deities & Demigods (1980) aka Legends & Lore (1985), the 2E AD&D Legends & Lore (1990) only uses the plural form, while its Monstrous Manual "Giant, Cyclops" page uses the plural and singular correctly as does the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia (1991) and 3E D&D sources such as WotC's Deities and Demigods (2002) and Shining South (2004). Note that the 2E MM entry is mostly about the 7½ foot Cyclopskin not the 20 foot Cyclops Giant, the latter appears to be equivalent to the "Mythological" Lesser Cyclopes.
 

Cleon

Hero
The gigantes (singular gigas) are a race of legendary giants, the offspring of the primordial earth goddess Gaea and the sky god Uranus. According to myth, the blood of Uranus fertilized Gaea when their son Cronus the Titan castrated his father and usurped the throne. Known gigantes include Agrius, Alcyoneus, Athos, Clytias, Echion, Enceladus, Ephialtes, Eurytus, Clytius, Gration, Hippolytus, Mimas, Pallas, Polybotes, Porphyrion and Thoas. Gaea also bore giant children with other fathers, such as Antaeus the son of Poseidon. In turn, these gigantes may have gigas descendants unmentioned in mythology.

The gigantes ultimately warred with the Olympian gods in an epic battle called the Gigantomachy, but lost to the more powerful and younger gods. As a result, most surviving gigantes hate the Olympians, and will fight against them again if given the chance.

Antaeus is a gigas son of Mother Gaia, goddess of the earth, and the Olympian sea god Poseidon.

Hmm, I'd like to distinguish the generic gigantis and the Gigantis sons of Uranus.

Revision #1:

The gigantes (singular gigas) are a race of legendary giants, the offspring of the primordial earth goddess Gaea and the sky god Uranus. According to myth, the blood of Uranus fertilized Gaea when their son Cronus the Titan castrated his father and usurped the throne. Known gigantes include Agrius, Alcyoneus, Athos, Clytias, Echion, Enceladus, Ephialtes, Eurytus, Clytius, Gration, Hippolytus, Mimas, Pallas, Polybotes, Porphyrion and Thoas. Only a gigas sired by Uranus properly belongs to the "Gigantes" race, but Gaea also had gigas children with other fathers, such as Antaeus the son of Poseidon. Any of these gigantes might have descendants unmentioned in mythology.

The Gigantes ultimately warred with the Olympian gods in an epic battle called the Gigantomachy, but lost to the more powerful and younger gods. As a result, most surviving gigantes hate the Olympians, and will fight against them again if given the chance.



Antaeus is a gigas son of Mother Gaia, goddess of the earth, and the Olympian sea god Poseidon. Not being a child of Uranus means he is not a "proper" Gigantes.



The enormous, malformed Enceladus (Enkelados) is one of the Gigantes, a race of giants born from the primal deities Uranus and Gaea. During the Gigantomachy, Zeus defeated Enceladus with his thunderbolts, and Athena buried him under a mountain.
 


Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top