Converting Greyhawk Monsters to OD&D

[JMiskimen]

Take the Carrion Crawler, which has multiple attacks, for example. Does it receive 8 individual attacks or does it make 1 attack as most OD&D monsters?

Another example weighing on my mind, though not from Greyhawk, would be a favorite monster of mine, the Grell. Would you run this monster with 10 individual attacks at 1D6 damage plus paralysis saves and/or a bite at 1D6 damage (Converting Damage to OD&D style) or either a single bite or tentacle strike plus a paralysis save at 1D6 damage? Or does a Grell have sufficient Hit Dice for a 2d6 attack? Another possible way to run the Grell would be to forgo tentacle damage, instead simply making the paralysis save and leaving the real damage to come from the bite attack ...

I ask this because certain monsters, such as ghouls and gargoyles get multiple attacks in Greyhawk, yet in OD&D they appear as receiving one attack. Where do you draw the line?

[jcstephens]

DM's choice as to how lethal you want them to be. I'd give the Carrion Crawler a single attack, since 8 chances for paralysis per round would make it a TPK machine and it just looks too goofy for that. A Grell OTOH being a flying brain squid just looks like something that any sane person would run away from screaming, so it's attacks should reflect that. But that's just my opinion.

[Falconer]

Yeah, the thing is, OD&D is NOT all about unified mechanics. Every spell, every item, every monster can have mechanics which are completely unique to it. So, I wouldn’t worry about “converting” monsters to “pure” OD&D “standards”, because they made new stuff for a reason. Greyhawk and Fiend Folio monsters were invented to be new and surprising stuff to add to your OD&D game.

[scottenkainen]

I dealt with this issue in H&H and compromised. Monsters with 8+ limbs, like an octopus, get 1-3 attacks with them. Biting still counts as a separate attack.

[talysman]

My way of thinking is: monsters do get multiple attacks if they have multiple heads, or if they are otherwise able to focus on/attack multiple targets simultaneously, like the hydra or chimera. So, if you conceive of the grell as attacking multiple people all at once, multiple attack rolls would be reasonable.

The carrion crawler is not something I usually associate with attacks on multiple targets. I don't even think of it as all that aggressive, more like a very dangerous scavenger that is better left alone. So what I do is give it a bonus to attack instead of multiple attack rolls: +8, the number of tentacles (assuming it also bites.) A grell that can only attack one person at a time gets +10; anyone hit gets one save vs. paralysis.

[oakesspalding]

Well, as has been recognized, there is precedent in the little brown books for multiple attacks--as many as ten!--in special cases. For example, it is noted that for Giant Octopi and Giant Squid, "each arm may attack" (U&WA, p. 35). But Talysman has a point about the Carrion Crawler. How long are these tentacles? And does it really make sense that all eight of them could fight independently with what would appear to be intelligent direction without of course being controlled by anything more powerful presumably than an insect brain? Then again, as has also been implied above, part of the charm of OD&D is that there is no unified mechanic in these sorts of cases--giving the Carrion Crawler eight attacks might be just another way of showing that these creatures are REALLY nasty in a fun sort of way.

[inkmeister]

Good question. I'd lean against the attack routines of greyhawk if I were interested in a LBB style game. It seems like the Greyhawk approach was trying to be more realistic by incorporating variable damage and the multiple attacks for monsters, but I think the approach is sort of a confused one. I like it though, and would use it for a classic (ie Moldvay) style game, but not LBB. The reason it is a confused approach is because it is starting to blur the idea of an abstract 1 minute combat round with the idea that attacks are represented literally. It raises the question: why don't fighters carrying 2 swords get 2 attacks per round? And so on.

I think the abstract combat round is better, and I would rather represent the danger of certain monsters with bigger damage or greater chance to hit, or both. (I do like variable damage more than multiple attack routines). So I have no problem with what Talysman (I think it was he) said about giving Carrion Crawlers one attack, but with a fairly high attack bonus. I do believe D&D would be better served by divorcing to hit bonus from hit dice, and this is an example of a situation where doing so would be preferable.

[waysoftheearth]

A Carrion Crawler and a Grell have both appeared in my Hinterlands game on these boards.

I've tried various ways of handling multiple attack creatures, including boiling it all down to a single attack roll, rolling 1d6 to determine the number of attacks and then resolving them individually, and also rolling a fixed number of attacks based on number of hit dice.

Having tried the above, I now think the best (most efficient) approach is probably to abstract all those to a single attack roll. I haven't tried talysman's + per attack method, but that certainly looks appealing too. If you like, the number of hit points damage caused can be representative (in terms of the narrative) of how many tentacles (or whatever) get into the mix.

For attacks that subsequently require saving throws, I use one saving throw per round because in OD&D an attack roll covers an abstract period of combat -- we don't know exactly how many individual hits there may have been, so it doesn't make sense to save once per hit. It's also pretty unlikely that a player will succeed on 3+ saves in a row, so is it really a fair and proper chance to "save"?


edit:


FWIW -- here's the translated Grell I used in my game:


The flying brain is nasty indeed.

AC 5/7
HD 5
MV fly 9"

The Grell levitates silently, and habitually gravitates to the ceiling in order to drop upon unwary passers-by. From below, the Grell's mass of tentacles and beak are AC5. A tentacle can be severed with any hit from slicing weapon, but damage does not subtract from the monster's overall hit points. Severed tentacles will regrow in 1-2 days.

A successful hit roll by the Grell indicates that 1-6 tentacles have grabbed a victim, each causing 1 hp of electrical stun damage per tentacle. At round's end, the victim must save versus petrification to avoid being stunned for 1 round per hit.

Having stunned a victim, the Grell will levitate to a safe altitude, carrying a man-sized victim with it. At this point, any missile attacks are 50% likely to hit the victim whose body will partly shield the Grell itself. Once out of harm's way the Grell will use it's beak attack, automatically hitting a stunned/held victim for 2-12 damage each round.

Lightning will haste a Grell.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 20, 2013 14:53:37 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I do believe D&D would be better served by divorcing to hit bonus from hit dice, and this is an example of a situation where doing so would be preferable.

Yes, I agree with this. See here .

[oakesspalding]

Proposal (a year late from the earlier conversation referenced by waysoftheearth and perhaps being sort of a compromise):

Allow combatants to sacrifice 5 "to hit" points for an extra die of damage, 10 "to hit" points for two extra dice, and so on. So if one is at 10 to hit (a 1st level Fighting-Man vs. Armor Class 9 or a 7th level Fighting-Man vs. Armor Class 4, etc.), one could choose to be at 15 to hit and do double damage, or 20 to hit and be at triple damage. Looking at attacks from an "expected value" perspective one would want to do this until one was ABOVE 10 to hit. Of course, perhaps harking back to the tables put together by waysoftheearth, the slope of the effect could be increased by making it only a 4 "to hit" sacrifice, or even a 3.

Is this "realistic"? I have no idea, but it would do three things:

1. It would make higher level characters and monsters more effective (while keeping "standard" damage at 1d6).
2. It would shorten combats at higher levels, and
3. It would give players another interesting combat choice. If your back is against the wall and you think you or your party is about to die, you could choose to gamble and go for the lower probability but higher potential damage hit, thus giving combat a bit more drama.

[JMiskimen]

Thanks guys for so many thoughtful responses. So much of OD&D is what feels right and somewhere among your posts I feel I have a handle on how to deal with my initial problem. (Wouldn't it be great to get all these top notch OD&Ders at a table together?! One can dream, I suppose.)