D&D 5E Dire Animal Template

[Tony Vargas]

(I didn't say "solo opponent" because any solo opponent to a tier II party needs to be in the double-digit CRs. But that would have to be "legendary animals", and I'm not sure the need is such that a template is warranted. Besides, once you involve legendary lair actions etc you're probably better off statting up an individual creature)

Oh, yeah, I remember 'Legendary Animals' from 3.5 - and Druids changing into them. ;|

So my question is: can you apply this template twice. Your Dire Wolf is in the CR 1-2 range. If we dire it again, a Dire Dire Wolf winds up with 219 hit points and 3 attacks at 22 damage each, for roughly CR 10. That... actually seems like it could work. I do think we would need better terminology than Dire Dire. ;} Or it might be better to phrase it as a whole new template. "Primal Beast"?

I suppose you could have an amped up animal type for each tier. Animal, then Dire Animal, then Giant Animal, then Primal-Beast, then Legendary?

 

[jgsugden]

Note that this has implications for polymorph spells... suddenly the Dire T-rex as a CR 16 monster opens the door for a much more powerful polymorph augmentation at higher levels.

Making a beast is usually pretty simple. Rather than try to come up with a template that doesn't work great, I'd instead try this:

1.) Pick the base beast and look up the stats and abilities.
2.) Pick the CR target for the new beast.
3.) Pick a 'beater' style monster of that CR.
4.) Use the 'beater' monster's stats and the original creature's stats to create the target creature.

I think I could do this about as quickly as I could apply a template and then evaluate whether it worked well.

Let's say I want a CR 5 Dire Brown Bear. I look up a CR 5 beater (Hill Giant) and tweak.

Huge beast, unaligned

Armor Class 13 (natural armor)
Hit Points 105 (10d12 + 40)
Speed 40 ft. , climb 30'

Abilities: 21 (+5) 10 (0) 19 (+4) 2 (-4) 13 (+1) 7 (-2)


Skills Perception +4
Senses passive Perception 14
Languages --
Challenge 5 (1,800 XP)

ACTIONS

Multiattack. The bear makes two attacks - one claw and one bit.

Bite: Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 18 (3d8 + 5) piercing damage.

Claw: Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 22 (5d6 + 5) piercing damage.

That took me less than 2 minutes... and most of that was time spent formatting.

 

[CapnZapp]

- The "add 30 HP" feels incongruous.

It's so the template works for both critters with very few hit points and critters with plenty.

Without it, a 1 hp critter would have 3, which just is not a meaningful increase. (To take the extreme example).

It basically says "triple hp but no less than 30" which means it survives one attack (from every likely foe it will ever meet).

Also - here's my previous post on this subject:

But basically, the template can't just double hit points, say. It also needs to provide a static boost.

Let's say "CR 2" means 40 hit points (perhaps not for creatures with good defenses, but animals have poor defenses). Then our template can say "double hit points plus 40", to ensure every critter becomes at least CR 3 (as regards hit points, at least). I might be inclined to make that "30 plus triple hp" to make the base creature's beefiness count for more, and to differentiate different dire beasts...

Now for your other questions. Thank you for your feedback.

 

[CapnZapp]

- How about increasing the saves in which it is proficient by 2, also? And skills in which it is proficient.

I guess the line on "quick and simple" needs to be drawn somewhere.

I'm not sure why we're increasing Int to 6.

To be honest, I'm not sure either. Did d20 do things differently? I don't remember.

We can easily drop this. As you say, Awaken still exists.

- Finally, if your goal is to increase an entire tier, that's going to be really tough.

I guess I'm settling for "five CR steps" (which amounts to a tier as long as you start at CR 1).

I'm pleased you think the example snake did jump a tier.

Of course the results will mainly be giant sacks of hit points. When you need something more intricate, "quick and easy" is not the right tool for the job.

This template is for when you want to upgrade a spider or crocodile to a dire beast. Not when you're weaving a tale around an individual beast monster.

So my question is: can you apply this template twice. Your Dire Wolf is in the CR 1-2 range. If we dire it again, a Dire Dire Wolf winds up with 219 hit points and 3 attacks at 22 damage each, for roughly CR 10. That... actually seems like it could work. I do think we would need better terminology than Dire Dire. ;} Or it might be better to phrase it as a whole new template. "Primal Beast"?

My thought in general would be - no, applying the same kinds of bonuses seldom work well.

If we want to upgrade dire into legendary (to use d20 parlance) we need more: the creatures need resistances and immunities for one thing. They probably deserve legendary actions (5e terminology). And they should be given new attacks and abilities.

I'm sure you can boil it down to a template. I'm also sure "double dire" is not the best way to start.

Note that this has implications for polymorph spells... suddenly the Dire T-rex as a CR 16 monster opens the door for a much more powerful polymorph augmentation at higher levels.

Feel free to not allow players to mess around with this. I am looking at this strictly from the DMs point of view.

Making a beast is usually pretty simple. Rather than try to come up with a template that doesn't work great, I'd instead try this:

Let's stop there, thank you very much. Maybe you don't like templates, but that's what this thread is about. If there's something in particular about the template you feel could be improved, do share.

Regards,

 

[Ristamar]

I suppose you could have an amped up animal type for each tier. Animal, then Dire Animal, then Giant Animal, then Primal-Beast, then Legendary?

Is there really a functional difference between a "dire" animal and a "giant" animal? Comparing the difference between most regular animals and their giant counterparts, then the wolf to the dire wolf... the distinction seems largely semantic. Granted, some have an occasional quirk or unique feature (e.g. Giant Eagles are much smarter than their smaller brethren and can understand Auran and Common) though I'd consider that a plus versus using a standardized template.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is there really a functional difference between a "dire" animal and a "giant" animal?

I think there may have been at some point, maybe in 3.5, or possibly only in my confused brain. IIRC, Dire Animals weren't always a lot larger, but were meaner/more aggressive and kinda 'mutant' looking, while a giant animal could be a lot bigger, but simply a scaled up example.

 

[jgsugden]

...
Let's stop there, thank you very much. Maybe you don't like templates, but that's what this thread is about...

Please don't impose YOUR view of the limits of a thread on others (yet again). Half of the first post in this thread is about the troubles with the 3E templates. Any non-offensive extension of the original post (or ensuing on topic conversation) is generally acceptable. My thoughts are on point, despite not being in alignment with your views.

Templates, in general, were abandoned between editions because they fail to do what they're intended to do, which is exactly what the OP said he wants a new template to do: They fail to provide a simple and balanced method of 'upgrading' monsters by adding formulaic modifications to monsters.

If you apply the same formula to a CR 1/2 creature and a CR 6 creature, it will have drastically different levels of impact. You might be able to tailor a formula to work for two creatures of vastly different levels of power, but covering the spectrum of creatures would require either incredibly detailed models hand crafted to each creature in the spectrum, or would fail for too many creatures. If you apply the approach I advocate, you're less likely to end up with nonsensical enhancements due to mechanical non-tailored formulaic application.

What do I mean by nonsensical enhancements? Well, if you're attempting to augment a bear and a parrot, the augmentations you'd like to see would probably be quite different. One formula, unless highly complex with unreasonable conditional elements, isn't going to work as well as just crafting the enhanced version of the dire parrot (which I'd honestly do by tossing a mimicry ability on a hawk, giant vulture, flying dinosaur, hippogriff, or roc - perhaps with a few other tweaks) and the bear (which I did above in less than 2 minutes).

Further, running through the steps of applying a tailored template is cumbersome and time consuming - more so than just taking an existing creature of a similar power level to your desired end creature and tweaking the characteristics to be more like the base creature you wish to enhance.

 

[CapnZapp]

which is exactly what the OP said he wants a new template to do:

First off, I'm the OP.

I brought up 3E templates, not to discuss "templates are the worst", but to contrast 5E to an old cluttery edition.

So how about... not... starting to discuss what's wrong with templates when I'm asking for templates that work, eh?

I will never see the great allure in derailing threads... Sigh.

Why is is apparently impossible to ask that if you want to discuss the exact opposite of what the thread asks for, you start a new thread?

(Please don't answer that. It would be yet another conversation that isn't about the thread topic.)

 

[jgsugden]

First off, I'm the OP.

I brought up 3E templates, not to discuss "templates are the worst", but to contrast 5E to an old cluttery edition.

So how about... not... starting to discuss what's wrong with templates when I'm asking for templates that work, eh?

You don't see the relevance?

If someone asked for directions on how to drivefrom California to Hawaii, I'd think it might be a good idea to mention that there are no roads there, you'd be better off taking a boat/flight, and if you insist on driving you're going to ... get wet.

I will never see the great allure in derailing threads... Sigh.

Why is is apparently impossible to ask that if you want to discuss the exact opposite of what the thread asks for, you start a new thread?

(Please don't answer that. It would be yet another conversation that isn't about the thread topic.)

Again, please don't be the thread police. I don't see a moderator title on your profile. I'm not the first to make that request of you. When you bring a topic to the table, or express your views on another's thread, you do not have the right to curtail related discussion - and whether a template even could work is certainly related to the idea of building a template.

However, I'll address your concern by putting you back on my block list and keeping you there this time.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't have the DMG with me, so I can't guess at where this would put a creature in terms of CR change.
For a really quick and dirty template I would go with something like: Double HP, increase size by one step, double the dice of natural attacks, increase natural armour by 4, and grant advantage to Str and Constitution ability checks and saves.

For dire versions of "critter" level creatures that don't start powerful enough for the template to be effective, I would probably crib stats from other creatures: Bear stats for a Dire Badger, or Hyena stats for a Dire weasel perhaps.

A more complex dire template should probably change ability scores and other more in-depth adjustments, and would allow much more fine-tuning of final CR.

I like this. If I had to quick and dirty it.

Double hp
+2 to hit, damage, saves and AC.
or

X2 hp
advantage to hit
extra dice of damage on all attacks.

No change to CR maybe xp bonus or other reward (more treasure). Super advantage could also work (roll 3 dice keep the best 1).

3E had a decent system for some of the MM things assuming you had the time to do the work. SOme of the non MM templates though were erm wonky.