Paging Echohawk...

[Cleon]

Without even checking the Hollow World set, I know the answer to both of those questions is "yes" .

In my current working copy I have 2676 lines marked as new additions since the December 2008 release, so that version is most certainly rather out of date. Then, there are three year's worth of 4e releases still in my queue for adding to the index, plus a number of obscure sources I've picked up since 2008 that also need checking, so there is plenty of updating work that needs to be done too. (I've been a bit distracted by the Collector's Guide series for a while!)

If you do spot any omissions, free free to note them in this thread and I'll make sure they get included in a future update. I'm not near my collection right now, so can't immediately check the Hollow World set, but I will make sure I double check the creatures you've mentioned, to make sure they don't get overlooked!

Okie-Dokey.

Comparing the Hollow World Campaign Set to the copy of your index I've got (which appears to be dated 29th December 2008), the index has all of the character races in the Player's Book and all the monsters in the Adventure Book appendix.

It is missing all the monsters from the actual adventures in the Adventure Book, though. Namely...

Sun-Wight (page 4)
Olgaf the Huge, a "Dwarf Giant" (page 13)
Undead Tlachtli Players (page 14)
Were-Sabretooth (page 14)
Frost-Zombies (page 16)
Bounders (page 17)

I'm not sure Olgaf the Huge is worth bothering with, but the rest of them are.

There are assuredly lots and lots of obscure monsters in various AD&D and BECMI adventures. We've started converting some of the Haunted creatures from OA2 - Night of the Seven Swords and there are at least a dozen new monsters in that adventure alone, although a lot of them are merely one-line entries.

 

[Echohawk]

Coming back to this thread after nearly six months...

I've just added all of these omissions to my index, but with the exception of Olgaf and the Undead Tlachtli Players, there are already conversions in the Vaults of Pandius, so these don't change the total number of unconverted creatures. I agree that Olgaf probably isn't worth converting, but I'm also not sure that the Undead Tlachtli Players are either. They seem to basically be 5HD zombies, although they are described as "mummified".

 

[Cleon]

Coming back to this thread after nearly six months...

I've just added all of these omissions to my index, but with the exception of Olgaf and the Undead Tlachtli Players, there are already conversions in the Vaults of Pandius, so these don't change the total number of unconverted creatures. I agree that Olgaf probably isn't worth converting, but I'm also not sure that the Undead Tlachtli Players are either. They seem to basically be 5HD zombies, although they are described as "mummified".

Welcome back!

Freyar and I were just wondering where you had taken yourself.

Your unconverted D&D creatures lists were last updated in June, and we've added a few beasties to the CC since then. Do you have time to update them?

I've just added all of these omissions to my index, but with the exception of Olgaf and the Undead Tlachtli Players, there are already conversions in the Vaults of Pandius, so these don't change the total number of unconverted creatures. I agree that Olgaf probably isn't worth converting, but I'm also not sure that the Undead Tlachtli Players are either. They seem to basically be 5HD zombies, although they are described as "mummified".

Have you put a more up-to-date version of your list on the web? The latest one I have is the 2008-12-29 version.

As for the Tlachtli Players, they don't read as zombies to me. It requires considerable agility to play the game, and they ought to have special "ball attacks". Methinks they ought to be their own monster. Well, it's either that or come up with a "Tlachtli Player" Prestige Class for 'em...

 

[Echohawk]

Freyar and I were just wondering where you had taken yourself.

Oh, I didn't go anywhere. I still check ENWorld every day, but the Collector's Guides have taken up a lot of my spare indexing time, so I haven't done much monster maintenance for a while

Your unconverted D&D creatures lists were last updated in June, and we've added a few beasties to the CC since then. Do you have time to update them?

Yeah, that's on my "to do" list for this vacation, but might not happen until the new year.

Have you put a more up-to-date version of your list on the web? The latest one I have is the 2008-12-29 version.

No, sadly not. I am planning on giving the monster index some TLC again in 2013 -- there are about three years of 4e creatures to be added to get it up to date again. I'd like to produce an up-to-date version in time for the launch of D&D Next, whenever that might be.

As for the Tlachtli Players, they don't read as zombies to me. It requires considerable agility to play the game, and they ought to have special "ball attacks". Methinks they ought to be their own monster. Well, it's either that or come up with a "Tlachtli Player" Prestige Class for 'em...

Hmmm.... good point on them needing to be agile enough to play the game. I just looked at the zombie-like stat block. They aren't terribly complicated creatures though, but maybe they do need their own conversion.

 

[Cleon]

Hmmm.... good point on them needing to be agile enough to play the game. I just looked at the zombie-like stat block. They aren't terribly complicated creatures though, but maybe they do need their own conversion.

They might not be terribly complicated in BECMI D&D, but let me get my mitts on a conversion and I'll probably complicate them up for you...

Anyhow, I do fancy doing a conversion of the Ball Players and Sun-Wight sometime, but it's not very high priority. Especially as the latter already has a Pandius conversion.

 

[Cleon]

Just noticed my current version of the Echohawk index lacks an entry for the original AD&D version of the Return to White Plume Mountain Bog Mummy (aka the "Great Swamp Bog Mummy", although it does have entries for the CC conversion of that Bog Mummy.

Speaking of Bog Mummies, the official 3E Bog Mummy from Dragon Compendium Volume One is a conversion of the Dragon #238 Bog Mummy.

That Dragon magazine Bog Mummy is a different monster from the Bog Mummy from Requiem and the MCA4 Monstrous Annual, which is a Ravenloft monster. The Dragon version has a strangulation attack but lacks mummy rot, while the Ravenloft version has its own version of mummy rot, "bog rot", and has DR/copper, Cold Vulnerability and the ability to heal its wounds.

Should we consider converting the Ravenloft Bog Mummy as a "Swamp Mummy"?

 

[Cleon]

Should we consider converting the Ravenloft Bog Mummy as a "Swamp Mummy"?

Just noticed that the Bog Mummy from Skip William's "Denizens of Stone Bog - Mummies of the Bog" article from the Wizard's website has a Bog Rot special attack, although it lacks the other special abilities of the Requiem Bog Mummy and the Bog Rot doesn't cause Dex damage and "stiffening" like the Requiem Mummy's does.

Anyhow, we've got plenty of other monsters to attend to before we start worrying about whether to convert the Ravenloft Bog Mummy.

On the undead front I'd rather do those undead ball players from the Mystaran Hollow World, or the Sun-Wight from the same campaign.

 

[Cleon]

A touch of thread necromancy

Just thought I'd resurrect this thread (which really needs to be returned to General Monster Talk if there are any Mods watching, hint hint…).

Anyhow, I happened to be cataloging the D&D crocodiles and noticed that my copy of Echohawk's Index is missing the Marine Crocodile from Lawrence Schick's "Dinosaurs - New Theories for Old Monsters" article in Dragon #55.

Speaking of which, the Crocodilian entry of Stephen Inniss's "DINOSAURS!" article in Dragon #112 also has a "Marine" variant and adds a "Terrestrial" variant to the mix.

I'd better add at least the Marine Crocodile to the Creature Catalog to-do list…