Corrections to Monsters in the CC

Cleon

Adventurer
Just noticed that the Greater Peltast conversion has a couple of stat errors.

Its 2 Hit Dice mean that its Base Attack Bonus, Grapple Modifier, Attacks and Will Save should all be 1 point higher than the 1 Hit Dice regular Peltast.

I'll amend the version in the Enworld Resources CC in the next update, but might as well wait until we have a few conversions finished.

EDIT: Also the Greater Peltast and Peltast should both do 1d3-2 damage with their bite instead of 1d3-3 since their Strength of 6 gives a damage penalty of minus 2.
 

Cleon

Adventurer
Well I've come across a puzzler.

There are two constructs in the Creature Catalog.

Firstly, there's the 3.5 "Golem, Statue that Walks" in the regular CC, credited to the 1E AD&D FR6 - Dreams of the Red Wizards (1988).

Secondly, there's 3.0 "Stone Colossus" in the Crypt, credited to the 2E AD&D FR10 Old Empires (1990). Presumably it was assigned to the Crypt because it shares a name with the Epic Level Handbook's Stone Colossus, despite the two monsters being

The problem? They're the same monster! The 2E version even flat out says "Of the magical warriors, the only ones that survive are the Statues-That-Walk, also known as stone colossi" so despite the MC entry naming them "Colossus, Stone" this is just an alternative "aka" name for them.

So I'm thinking the 3.0 version might need rescuing from the Crypt and both versions need a rename, at least in the CC index if not necessarily in the monster writeups themselves. Maybe to "Golem, Stone Colossus (Statue-That-Walks)"?

Should we change the source of the 3.0 version to FR6 and add a note that it was originally named "Statue that Walks" then renamed "Stone Colossus" in FR10? It might help to have a note on the 3.5 version about the name change too.

Actually, neither CC version mention the other name, unlike the original AD&D text there's no "also known as" bit in the CC description. I'd consider adding a sentence to both version's description explicating their two names.

Also, I'd consider adding the Inspire Terror ability of the 3.0 version to the 3.5 one.

Or perhaps we should leave the existing 3.0 and 3.5 versions as they are and add a new updated version incorporating the above suggestions? That way we won't "pollute" the original conversions with alterations.
 

freyar

Extradimensional Explorer
My initial thought is to (1) move the 3.0 version out of the crypt and (2) put a note in each of the conversions' credits lines about the name change and link to each other. I'll have to think about whether to write another version.
 

Cleon

Adventurer
My initial thought is to (1) move the 3.0 version out of the crypt and (2) put a note in each of the conversions' credits lines about the name change and link to each other. I'll have to think about whether to write another version.
While we're on the subject of Colossi I was reading Creature Catalog's Colossus conversion - the one based on the creature from MC7 - Monstrous Compendium Spelljammer Appendix (1990) - and found it very unsatisfactory.

I'd argue it needs a revised edition.

Main problems:

SIZE: Shouldn't a 60-foot tall "basically humanoid" creature called a Colossus be, well COLOSSAL rather than Gargantuan? It's kind of in the name! At 60 feet it's just at the cusp of Gargantuan's 32 to 64 foot range and Colossal's 64 to 128 foot range. I can understand why it's Gargantuan. The listed weight (70 tons) scales down to a 273 pound Medium creature if you use the standard 8-times-heavier-per-size-category, and relative to the height a 60-foot 70-ton "colossus" has the same proportions as a 6-foot humanoid weighing from 140 pounds to 158 pounds (depending on what sort of ton we're talking about). Unfortunately, the MC7 illustration shows a creature almost as wide as he's tall - the picture's shoulder width literally measures at least 80% of his height, and he's not even standing straight on from the viewer so the angle would make it a few percent more. The guy's almost 50 foot wide! That also suggests the 70 ton weight is either too low or Colossi are abnormally light for their volume. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a D&D monster's illustration differs drastically from the text description.

SPEED: Its 20 ft. land speed is way too slow - the original was four times faster than a human PLUS it's missing the original's Fly Speed.

ATTACKS: The base damage of its slam and rock attacks look way too low. 2d8 and 2d12 when the original did 50-100 damage with a punch (that's what, 10d6+40). Also, shouldn't the Slam attack use 1.5 times its Strength bonus since it only has one natural weapon attack? Unless they actually have a 2 slam full attack but can't use it due to being sooo sslloooowwwww. . .

SPECIAL ABILITIES: Since the MC7 says they are "not related to the giants of the known worlds" and their aim with thrown boulders "is so poor that it rarely hits what it aims at" a Colossus should NOT have a true giant's Rock Throwing and Rock Catching abilities!

Edit: If anything, they need an "Inaccuracy" special ability like the original monster! /Edit

SPELLJAMMING: They need an "In Spelljammer" subentry about installing spelljamming helms on the to make them fully spaceworthy, as described in the original MC entry.

More minor quibbles are:

Natural Armour could probably do with improving to make its AC a bit more "CR appropriate".

The Enhanced Metabolism and Single Action Only traits are fairly serviceable but I'd prefer something more elaborate.

The rest of the stats are fine. The Strength of 50 is more or less what you get advancing a SRD Cloud Giant to Colossal: Str 35 + 16 for going up from Huge = Str 51.

Hey look, another argument for Colossal!

This is starting to sound like I'm talking myself into doing another Cleon Special…
 

Advertisement

Top