Got Fiend Factory?

[BOZ]

agreed. i don't want to see things fully streamlined (which would instill predictability and stifle creativity), but the better things are able to work together, the happier i am. innovations are good, for example, differentiating between improved grab and attach.

 

[Garnfellow]

Added another conversion: sraim demon.

 

[MissHappen]

I really like that one. A question for Garnfellow: in converting these, would you say that the mechanics you have chosen to replicate the original mechanics for the critter keep the same sort of comparative balance between incarnations of DnD? I've frequently noticed a distinctly different 'feel' to similar effects between 1st edition and 3-3.5.

Second question... where did you -get- those magazines!

I'll be watching. Keep converting!

 

[Garnfellow]

I really like that one. A question for Garnfellow: in converting these, would you say that the mechanics you have chosen to replicate the original mechanics for the critter keep the same sort of comparative balance between incarnations of DnD? I've frequently noticed a distinctly different 'feel' to similar effects between 1st edition and 3-3.5.

A really good question. A successful conversion has to balance game mechanics and flavor, and sometimes it's easy to lose one or even both elements in the translation.

I find that most mechanical elements translate very smoothly from one edition to another. But there are some definite exceptions: poison, for instance, plays very differently in 3e (generally, it does ability damage) than it does in past editions (where it was usually save or die).

There's been a lot of debate about these changes between editions, and many old-schoolers, for example, bewail the nerfing of poison and the like, while others claim that the changes make the game play better at the table.

One of the first steps of conversion is to decide where in the debate you stand: are you a purist (everything has to be exactly the same!) or are you a classicist (everything should feel the same, but the details can change!) or are you a radical (everything should be re-imagined to make it new, fresh, and cool!). Me, I'm a classicist.

When I convert a monster, I first try to look at both Hit Dice and the monster description to determine what the approximate Challenge Rating of the converted monster should be (approximate being something like with +/- 2 CR). This drives many of the subsequent decisions.

If an ability from a past edition would be much too powerful converted straight up in 3e, I will probably substitute something an ability with similar flavor but more congruent mechanics. And visa versa.

Monster design in past editions was always something of a black art, and many of the Fiend Factory monsters were designed with very few published models or examples to fall back on of good design. So I personally take a somewhat liberal approach in conversion. If something from the original just doesn't work in a 3e context, I've got no qualms about substituting something that works better.

So, let's take poison as an example. As mentioned above, almost all poisons in past editions were save or die, with a few being save or be incapacitated.

Unless the original description says something like "this small creature's venom is one of the deadliest in the multiverse," I will ignore instant death effects for anything other than high level monsters. (I think pit fiends are the only monsters left in the SRD with death effect poison.)

So normally that means I'm looking at some sort of ability damage. I will then look at the original description and the target CR as my guides. Sometime the original will have a note like "this sting is as deadly as a giant scorpion" which gives me an exact conversion, otherwise I will look at 3e monsters of a comparable CR to find a poison of a virulence that seems to line up with the original. Poisons described as deadly or dangerous will do Con damage, while others Str or Dex.

So, at the end of the conversion, what I want is an ability that lines up in name and spirit with the original, but uses 3e mechanics and is balanced with the monster's target CR.

 

[Garnfellow]

where did you -get- those magazines!

Alas, I got very few of them at my local hobby shop back in the day.

Instead, I am haunted by a picture in an old TSR catalog from the early 80s. The picture was part of an ad promoting the Dragon's UK sister, the White Dwarf. And the picture was of a huge stack of White Dwarf magazines, with strange and wondrous covers of monsters and starships and the like.

By the time I really was into D&D, TSR and GW had begun to part company, and WD was drifting away from D&D. But I never really got that ad out of my head.

About 8-10 years ago I started buying issues online. (I've never really seen them for sale at a used bookstore or game stores.) One or two at a time, gradually growing and slowly filling in the holes in the collection. It's been a long, slow, and sometimes expensive process. If you want to start a collection, use ebay and be patient. The good news is, individual issues are fairly cheap and (IMHO) the golden age of WD only runs from about issues 12 to 48.

Good hunting!

 

[MissHappen]

Well, Garnfellow, you are clearly a monster-junky after my own heart. I would also be considered a 'classicist', by your accounting.

I hadn't expected nearly such a thorough reply. For myself, I am very much a 'flavor' person when it comes to stats. I want the statistics to reflect the feel of the monster and its part in the story it is providing. In general, those games I enjoy most are the ones where the mechanics reinforce the themes of the game, as opposed to providing a mere resolution system.
So, the 'plug n play' sorts of stat work that 3.5 seems to lean towards has its advantages, but all too often, I look at a stat block in a supplement, and I find it flavorless. "Oh, look," I think. "Ogres with ability x."
One thing I miss about the earlier days of DnD is the innovation, the fearless stride towards deep weirdness in monster design. You still see it on occasion today (some notable worthies on these boards, for example), but it just doesn't seem as common as it used to be, in my opinion. It is one reason I have an interest in these old WD articles. It is like history that needs preserving!
However, as I've pointed out, I thrive on the weird stuff.
Your insights on conversions were very interesting to read, and I thank you for it. Generally, I have 2 versions of critters when I run a conversion; one is the 'pure form', which is as close to the original in game 'feel' to the original as I can translate it (barring some minor tweaks, like poison as you'd mentioned), and the 'balanced version', which prevents a CR 2 monster from slaughtering parties with save or die effects, say (or worse, a CR 10 critter who can't possibly challenge anyone of 6th level, much less 10th).

Thank you also for input on the acquisition of the magazines.

Keep the conversions rolling.

-MsM

 

[Garnfellow]

I think you are right that there is a certain loss of flavor in many 3e monsters, though I am conflicted since the amateur game designer in me really appreciates having templated abilities -- that is, abilities with standard, unified mechanics.

I'm currently working on an index of monster special abilities, and I am noticing that some designers are able to effectively insert flavor into the mechanics:

• one can add a first line to the special ability description that gives a flavor-filled description of how a standard ability works for that specific monster. So for a plant monster with improved grab, one could add a sentence or two at the beginning of the ability line describing how it's hairy, thorned tendrils wrap around the limbs of its prey with terrible rapidity, etc.
• one can re-name a standard ability something flavorful, so our plant monster's improved grab might become something like "Grasping Tendrils (Ex)"
• one can re-task a standard ability, keeping the basic mechanics but turning everything else upside down.

A good example of this last method is found in the Laghathti demon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060620a). This horrible octopus-like creature has an ability that functions in every way like undead level drain, but feels nothing like it at all:

Mindwipe (Su) Anyone that takes damage from a laghathti's tentacle or bite attack must make a DC 19 Will save or gain one negative level as the hundreds of tiny mouths that cover their writhing bodies siphon away memories. Negative levels gained from a laghathti's mindwipe do not result from negative energy, and although they persist until cured by restoration or greater restoration, never result in actual level loss. This is a mind-affecting ability. The save DC is Charisma-based and includes the +2 bonus from the laghathti's Ability Focus feat.

So, to some extent I think it's perfectly possible to have great flavor within a 3e context, but just most monster designers never take that extra step.

 

[Mortis]

By the time I really was into D&D, TSR and GW had begun to part company, and WD was drifting away from D&D. But I never really got that ad out of my head.
<snip>
and (IMHO) the golden age of WD only runs from about issues 12 to 48.

IIRC WD stopped supporting non GW products around issue 100 ?(at least that's when I stopped buying it). Sadly all I've got left are the Thrud cartoons that I removed before recycling the magazines and a copy of the Best of White Dwarf III (which has some Fiend Factory monsters in).

Regards
Mortis

 

[Garnfellow]

After a long search, I finally scored a copy of the rare White Dwarf DVD, with PDFs of the first 10 years of the magazine. And to celebrate, I've published a conversion of another "lost" Roger Moore monster, the water leaper.

I'm not sure there are many more WD monsters worth converting, though I am working on a conversion of a kick-ass adventure, the Lair of Maldred the Mighty.

 

[Shade]

Neat! Excellent work as always.