The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I recently got permission to put Collective Restraint's GURPS conversions of D&D Monsters on the GURPS Repository (I am currently up to "Dragon, Black Wyrm"), and it occurs to me that there must be lots of people who have converted D&D monsters to GURPS over the years. Time to gather them all in one place! If you have converted a D&D monster to GURPS, please share it here so that I (or someone else) can put it into the Repository. If you know of any netbooks or other online documents, please share the links to it - we do need permissions by the individual authors of these documents, of course, but before we can get permission we need to know that they exist.

To clarify, what I am looking for here are "Dungeon Fantasy"-style stat blocks, not racial writeups - there is a section for that, too, but it's not the main focus of this thread.

If you want to take your own stab at converting D&D monsters, a good source of them is the d20 SRD for the D&D 3.5 rules (some major iconic D&D monsters such as beholders and mind flayers are missing, but it's a good start), as well as the Pathfinder SRD - which is based on D&D 3.5 and has a lot of other "classic" D&D monsters from other sources.

The following conversion guidelines have served me fairly well:

GURPS ST = D&D Str
GURPS DX = 10 + (D&D Dex modifier)
GURPS HT = 10 + (D&D Con modifier)
GURPS IQ = 10 + (D&D Int modifier)
GURPS DR = (D&D natural armor modifier)/2

Of course, conversion is an art as much as it is a science - so if you have any insights of your own on converting D&D monsters, please share them!

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Isn't that due to WotC particularly insisting on retaining rights to "Product Identity" aspects of D&D in the OGL, including the iconic monsters? Likely Jones and Rodriguez won't actually come calling, but you probably need to at least sanitize the names.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Indeed. However, this only matters for material published under the OGL, which a GURPS conversion doesn't - instead, the conversion falls under "fan work", and every entry in the GURPS Repository submitted with the correct form (on the page I linked to) has a copy of the WotC fan site policy.

(The SJG fan site policy is, of course, displayed on the side bar of the wiki...)

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I recommend looking at the list of monsters included in Swords & Wizardry Core edition as a starting to figure out which creatures to convert first. And covert any missing creatures from that list first using the d20 stats as a guideline.

http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/cleanwpfilecore4.rtf

That will cover just about all the core D&D monsters. From there the remaining d20 monsters can be converted.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

First, this is awesome.

Some of the monsters (like the beholder) seem to have a full description copied from somewhere. That may be a "summary" but it doesn't look like it. How do you feel about users editing contributions?

Some of the monsters are missing DF stats (like combat rating).

I would HIGHLY recommend you increase the font size on all legal disclaimers. It's more honest (IMHO).

Also, I suggest putting a SJ Games GURPS banner with link to SJGames on the sidebar. It would look snazzy and be a nice "shout out" (also drawing some attention to the disclaimer). I was going to edit for you, but I did not have permission. My username is trechriron if you would like some help with admin/structure/main content.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I have no problems with it. If an edit seems inappropriate, we can always change it back later via the History.

Calculating Combat Rating is a major effort which not all contributors might be willing to face. But that's why this is a wiki - anyone can contribute!

I disagree. The legal disclaimers are important, no doubt - they should be there, and visible.

Still, they represent "nonfunctional" aspects of the pages which won't be of immediate use to most users, and thus I think it's okay if they are in a smaller font. The WotC disclaimer, for instance, needs to be included in every D&D conversion-related page.

You need to join the wiki before I can give you admin rights.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

To be honest, that document is not particularly useful for conversion purposes, since its stat blocks - unlike those of the d20/Pathfinder SRDs - do not list attributes or other details which would make a conversion easier.

As for what creatures should be tackled first, that is of course up to everyone's own preferences - there have been so many iterations of D&D and d20, and so many published monsters, that nobody is going to be out of conversion work any time soon. ;)

My own preference would be to finish the 3.5 Monster Manual first, since most of its creatures are available online in the SRD (which makes conversion work easier). In fact, I've created a subpage for that book which lists all the monsters that appeared in it, as well as links to any actual converted entries in the wiki. In time, I hope we will be able to add similar pages for other D&D "monster manuals"...

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

This is probably pretty good in many cases, but leaving it at that for large creatures might not be a good idea. D&D 3.5 (and most likely 3.0 as well) gives more carrying capacity for larger creatures of the same strength (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm). It would probably be appropriate to add some lifting strength to such creatures (whose carrying capacity will otherwise not only differ greatly from the D&D monsters, but also often be unresonably low). I don't know if this has been done for some of the monsters, but at least the "Dragon, Black Wyrm" and "Frost Giant" don't have lifting strength.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

It also has an exponential lifting scale. A great wyrm red dragon (Colossal, Str 45, Quadruped) has a Heavy encumbrance of 307,200 lb, corresponding to a Lifting ST of 554 (Str 10 has Heavy of 100, so lifting ST = sqrt( Heavy encumbrance ). However, actually scaling the stats in d20 may produce unplayable results in GURPS.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Well, a red great wyrm is supposed to be a pretty unplayable opponent for ordinary mortals. However you are right in that the exponential scale used in D&D is problematic for very high strength creatures. The disparity between damage and carrying capacity eventually grows very large (though I don't think that is a large problem, except for the strongest monsters such as great wyrms).

It is probably fine to just ignore the difference in scale and set GURPS ST = D&D Str for the vast majority of creatures as long as you add Lifting Str if they are large. However without such adjustements for size you can get rather bad results for a lot of creatures.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I just had a look at GURPS Dragons how they statted dragons there. Even the biggest "generic" dragon template, the "Monstrous Dragon" with SM +5 has a template ST of 30 and DR 7 - and no additional Lifting ST.

In contrast, the "Wyrm Black Dragon" at the Repository, which also has SM +5, has ST 35, and a DR of 16 (while the GURPS Dragons version only has DR 7).

Thus, the GURPS ST = d20 Strength seems workable enough. Also keep in mind that the primary goal here is to create useful combat stat blocks - how much the creatures in question can carry is frequently a lesser concern. ;)

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

An added idea:

Plenty of people have come up with converted D&D creatures, but many of them won't have the time to add them to the wiki.

Thus, I've created a Google Drive Shared Folder where anyone can upload their own files with such creatures.

Important - only upload files with conversions you have created yourself, or which the author gave you permission to use for this purpose.

Furthermore, include the name of the author in the filename, so that we can give proper credit when adding it to the wiki.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I've finished with adding the conversions by Collective Restraint.

What's next?

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Fine job!!

I joined the Wiki, trechriron, let me know where I can help out.

I have the Pathfinder Bestiary PDFs. I think digging into 2, 3 and 4 would be fun. They have some cool monsters in there!

Also, 5th Edition Foes for 5e has some great classic monsters in there.

I will take a crack at a couple here this weekend, get my feet wet. :-)

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

It sounds like dragons have been nurfed quite a bit since I played D&D.

Here you have the largest black dragon being 1 SM larger but 10 ST weaker than your average elephant. That sounds like a pushover for the 1000+ CP DF combat monsters that it should be built to face.

The biggest black dragon in 2nd ed. was around SM +8. If the SM +2 dragon in Basic were scaled up to SM +8 using the rules in Fantasy p. 51, she would have 250 ST. Or if you want to not include the tail and fudge the size a little, you could call it SM +7 and go with ST 170. That seems about right. A claw will do around 28d.

The SM +5 black dragon you're talking about is more like what 2nd ed. would call a young adult. Using Fantasy's method, he'd have about ST 80. I guess they don't make editions like they used to.

Hypothetically, if a man-sized dragon has 8-13 ST, then a scaled SM +5 dragon should have 54-89 ST.

Realism and consistency aside, if you just want to create stat blocks that are meant to serve as a certain challenge, I' think you still need much higher ST values on your epic monsters. Things like the largest dragons are not meant for 250 point, or even 750 point, DF characters IMO. Depending on the dragon color, I'd expect PCs to be in the 1000 - 1600 range to deal with great wyrms. Otherwise, what are those epic level characters going to do? It's the name of the game after all.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Well, you know the basics. ;)

I've given you admin access. If you feel you are up to it, you can also come up with a better CSS scheme for the wiki - I've never gotten around to coming up with something better than the default scheme, and I don't have the time to delve into that.

I have a test wiki for CSS/layout testing purposes - if you want, I can give you admin access for that as well, so that you can play around with it before testing it on the GURPS Repository.

Indeed. Furthermore, I added new forms which make use of the Pathfinder fan site policy (which differs from the WotC one.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Hmmm... good points - looking at the animals in the Basic Set, high D&D Strength should result in even higher GURPS ST values, instead of the 1:1 conversion.

Any suggestions for a formula? Perhaps increasing ST by +25% per size category above "Medium"?

Thus we would get:

Large: +25%
Huge: +50%
Gargantuan: +75%
Colossal: +100%

Also, what SM ranges should these D&D size categories represent?

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

No, it's just a problem with a conversion. That wyrm black dragon in 3e can kill armies.
I'd just change your ST conversion for Str > 20. Possibly also throw hit dice into the mix.

For comparison, the wyrm black dragon in d20 has:
Size G -- 16-125 tons
Str 35 -- base of 3,200 lb (ST 56), but increased to 38,400 lb (ST 195) for being a quadruped.
Natural Armor 33 -- for reference, plate armor provides 8 points in d20, so even if you're using a linear conversion, it's about DR 25. Also DR 20/magic, so it's basically immune to nonmagical weapons.
Attack Bonus +42, bite 4d6+12, a bunch of secondary attacks. This isn't all that convertible, but I probably wouldn't convert melee damage to lower than it is in d20, so at least 7d6 damage in GURPS.

A first pass at conversion:

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I've decided that conversion guidelines should be a separate wiki page.

Naturally, this is still a work in progress. Apart from the discussion revolving around ST, another issue is how attacks requiring Will or Fortitude saves should be converted. They are afflictions, of course - but how should the resisting attribute be modified?

I came up with the following:

d20 save DC - GURPS Attribute Modifier
11 or less: +1
12-13: 0
14-15: -1
16-17: -2
18-19: -3
20-21: -4
22-23: -5

and so forth.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

2 DC per GURPS modifer seems like a good choice, but I would probably put 0 at DC 10-11. A basic level one commoner with 10 in all stats have a 50% chance to resist a DC 11 effect, while a GURPS character with 10 in all stats would have slightly more than 50% chance to resist an effect with a 0 modifier.

Also why use +1 for all low DCs? Should not a DC 5 effect be easier to resist than one with DC 8?

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Most character classes will likely have some bonuses to their saving throws even at first level, though. And almost no d20 player character will have penalties to one of their saving throws, while having a GURPS PC with a 10 in HT or Will is readily conceivable.

I don't think there are that many effects with a DC lower than 10 in the first place. DC 10 pretty much represents: "This is as easy to resist as possible", and the GURPS counterpart is an affliction which gives a +1 to the resisting attribute.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

That is because the default assumption in D&D is that player characters are exceptional people. Average people just have ~10 in their attributes and classes that mostly give bad saving throw progressions.

High point value characters in GURPS are also likely to have above 10 in some of their "saving throws". This is not certain because you have more freedom in how to make your character in GURPS, but they would certainly have the points to do so if they tried to give their character roughtly the same capabilities as a D&D PC.

I don't think there are any DF character template with neither of HT or Will above 10 (probably not even among the 125 point henchmen templates).

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

That would be a good idea. Test first! As a tester, I appreciate that approach...

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I tried out converting a creature and uploaded it to the google drive folder.

Wraith

This is the first D&D creature I have converted so feel free to point out any mistakes I might have made or anything you would have done differently.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Hmm, that's the most powerful GURP Dragon template? Aren't the strongest D&D dragons ludicrously powerful? Seems underpowered for that.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Yeah, GURPS Dragons seems to be mostly "these are dragons that are useful for 3e fantasy level campaigns". My rule of thumb is '5 ST per hex', and if that means a mountain that's actually a sleeping dragon has a ST of a million (a ridge 12 miles long or so), so be it. That's actually not that weird a size for a fantastic dragon.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Someone needs to go through and dot the Is and cross the Ts. Namely, make sure Combat Effectiveness Rating is calculated, melee attacks have Reach, missile attacks have Range and Acc, added Weight where I could find it (it has a spot according to the SJ Games Bestiary stat block format in the formatting guide), made sure stuff like Class represents GURPS terms (like "Mundane") instead of D&D terms (like "Monstrous Humanoid"). I did this for about 200 monsters from sources I respected (like you, Faolyn, Mailanka, Bruno, one or two others), though looking back I don't think I managed to represent all of Mailanka's goodies right, and I'm sure I screwed up a few CERs early on. It sounds kind of tedious because it is, but if you do a few a night, it's good practice.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Or just use the Wikipedia, and go book by book. Doing this makes a bunch of smaller lists, and it isn't as daunting to look at seven different lists of 40 monsters as it is to look at 280 monsters. Just go in order Monsters and Treasure, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry (which is mostly psionic monsters), Moldvay Basic, Cook Expert, then look at the SRD to fill in the gaps. It's a psychological thing, and lets everyone prioritize.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Looks good at a first glance. I've added it to the wiki.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Without trying to actually do it, but working through a rough version:

1. Start with the version of the flumph in the Tome of Horrors. I get something like ST 10, DX 13, IQ 10, HT 10. Subattributes are normal, other than Per and Will 12.
2. The flumph is Small, about 2 feet athwart. Its sub-attributes aren't unusual at all, it has 6 points of natural armor, BAB +1, Weapon Finesse. It would be about SM -3, DR 3* (Tough Skin), Brawling-11, Innate Attack-11. Its skill points went into Hide 2, Listen 2, Move Silently 2, Search 2, Spot 2, so we'll give it Acute Vision 1, Acute Hearing 1, Stealth-14, Observation-12.
3. It has Flight (Air Move 3) but doesn't move at all on the ground, so it has No Legs and No Manipulators. Its alignment (LG) and description as being "non-offensive" means some kind of Pacifism, like Cannot Harm Innocents. They like to be with others; Congenial? Chummy? You get the idea. Its Darkvision and Low-Light Vision would mean it can see well in the dark, which it needs being underground. Infravision is my guess.
4. Its spikes are strikers, and so they do 1d-1 impaling plus follow-up 1d-2 corrosive. Reach C. The acid keeps dealing damage for the next 1d seconds, with the special effect that you can run it under water or someone can make a First Aid check.
5. The spray from its, uh, let's not go there. Its spray is a jet that is 1 yard wide and has a range of 1/10, Acc 3. The victim must Resist HT or be nauseated for a number of seconds equal to the amount by which he missed the roll. Normally, DC 11 gives the resistance roll a +2, but I'm dropping that since in GURPS, to take effect, the flumph must hit, AND the foe must Dodge or Block, and he has to fail the resistance roll. D&D dispenses with the defense roll. I'll still give the +2 bonus to those folks who smell the lingering smell.
6. Your call whether to give it Reputation -4 (Really lame monster).

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Is there some effort being made to normalize the monsters?

As someone noted, a D&D level 20 party taking on a dragon the size of a 747 is one thing. A GURPS party of 550-pt characters taking on the same dragon is just days away from being dragon manure...

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Pathfinder had some neat ideas about them - you can read them here.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Great Wyrms are not appropriate opponents for small groups of remotely realistic humans at low tech levels. Such creatures are supposed to be able to fight entire armies. There are plenty of less powerful dragons in D&D that would make good opponents for 550-pt characters.

D&D characters (even 20th leveled ones) are not necessarily more powerful than GURPS characters, so I don't think such normalization attempts would be a good idea.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

That's a strange thing to say about D&D.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I calculated the Combat Effectiveness Rating for about 200 monsters on the wiki; I'll let someone else get the practice on Jürgen's latest batch. I am not one for game balance all the darn time myself. Let 'em run.

Having said that, I wouldn't count out a party of 550-point characters against a 100 HP dragon. They have at least one action per combatant, easily bypassing the dragon in this regard, and will have loads of special abilities.

Re: Flumphs
 

Flumphs explicitly do in 3e as well. Shunning hunting isn't Pacifism.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Apparently, as the wyrm dragon is grossly underpowered. Personally, I'm opposed to normalization, not everything should be viable for a given power level of PC, any more than it's reasonable to have a great wyrm dragon in a level 10 D&D game.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Still, a great wyrm could be the size of a bus, and not a 747.

Just scale it down some, in other words.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Why? I question the value of any formulaic conversion of d20 monsters, but if you're going to do so, might as well make it accurate (not that it's actually the size of a 747; the size rules are vague, but most likely a great wyrm is 50-100' depending on type).

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

The D&D one inspired the GURPS one (I wrote the one on the wiki), but it isn't a translation by any means. The ones Jürgen and Thalassogen wrote are translations.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

The GURPSian one may be inspired by the earlier versions of the D&D kobold, which was a small, dim humanoid.

D&D 3E and later changed them to small reptilian critters very distantly related to dragons, which made them more interesting IMO. Frankly, there are already so many humanoids in D&D that it becomes hard to tell them apart.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Did the same thing happen with "Troglodyte," which means chimp or early man?

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I like the Munchkin Kobolds better, so cute and silly and at the same time, that wide maw gives the feeling of a genuine hardcore predator.

They remind me of the Cheshire Cat from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, which I think is really great.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I'd implement 3e kobolds as a racial package as something like:
Kobold (-5 points)
Attribute Modifiers: ST -3 [-30], DX +1 [20]
Secondary Characteristic Modifiers: SM -2 [0]
Advantages: DR 1, Flexible (Scales) [4], Infravision [10], Kobold Trickery 2 [10], Sharp Teeth [1]
Disadvantages: Cowardice (12) [-10], Social Stigma (Savage) [-10]
*Kobold Trickery adds to Lockpicking, Mining, Scrounging, Sleight of Hand, and Traps, as well as Alchemy rolls to create harmful or destructive materials.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Here is the version already up on the wiki:

22 points.

Attribute Modifiers: ST -3 [-30]; DX +1 [20].
Advantages: Damage Resistance 1 (Tough Skin, -40%) [3], Dark Vision [25], Kobold Talent 1 (Camouflage, Engineer (Mining), Observation, Stealth, Traps) [5].
Quirks: Light Sensitivity (-1 to Per- and DX-based rolls in bright sunlight) [-1].

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I couldn't leave this one undone:

Flumph
ST: 10 HP: 10 Speed: 5.75
DX: 13 Will: 12 Move: 0 (See notes)
IQ: 10 Per: 12
HT: 10 FP: 10 SM: -3
Dodge: 8 Parry: N/A DR: 3*

Spikes (14): 1d-1 impaling plus follow-up 1d-2 corrosive. The corrosive damage keeps happening for the next 1d seconds, or until someone makes a First Aid roll to flush the wound. Reach C.
Spray (14): The flumph shoots a foul-smelling jet 1 yard wide and 5 yards long. Anyone it hits with its jet must resist HT or be nauseated for a number of seconds equal to margin of failure. The smell lingers for 1d hours. Anyone coming within 30 yards of it must resist HT+2 or be nauseated for a number of seconds equal to margin of failure.

Traits: 360° Vision (Easy to Hit); Acute Hearing 1; Acute Vision 1; Congenial; Flight (Air Move 3); Infravision; Mute; No Legs; No Manipulators; Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents).
Skills: Brawling-14; Gesture-12; Observation-12; Stealth-14.
Class: Mundane.
Combat Effectiveness Rating: 21 (OR 17 and PR 4).
Notes: Flipping a flumph on its back keeps it from moving. Truly lame.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Crushing damage instead of Toxic? Seems an odd choice, what is your thinking there? I cant think of a reason, off hand, that a wraiths touch should be able to break down a door, just as an example.

Might as well throw Dominance in the list of Traits, thats what creates the Spawn in GURPS.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

How do you feel about us submitting our own monster? Is there a page for that?

For that matter, do you want to keep this strictly D&D conversion? How would you feel about me putting my guidelines for using RPM with DF on the magic section of the D&D pages?

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I did consider both these things. Similar creatures such as shadows and spectres don't deal such damage and unlike their abilities the attacks of wraiths are not negative energy effects. While as far as I can tell, the rules for damaging objects don't mention such damage, it would affect non-living creatures such as undead and constructs. It is however true that it would probably fit them better thematically if their attacks only affected living creatures. Perhaps the wraith attacks working that way might even be a mistake?

Dominance works very differently than their spawn ability so I just gave them that ability without including the spawn trait (I noticed that many of the other converted monsters had such custom abilities without an official GURPS advantage). Perhaps there are some modifiers that would make the Dominance advantage close to the wraith's create spawn ability?

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

http://gurpswiki.wikidot.com/monsters

I think this is the page for any monster submission. :-) I imagine it's welcome. The repository was created so fans can share all their GURPS things. (All the things) (now with 100% more Memes!!)

You can note that it's designed to be used with DF, but of course, people can re-skin any monster to any setting... The specific page listed with a link is for D&D conversions, so originals I think belong on the page linked above.

Personally, I would feel fantastic. :-) I think it would be awesome, and I feel like the repository is a good place for it.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Hrm, then at least no knockback. I just dont see Wraiths throwing stuff around quite like a crushing attack does. Impaling might be an option, if they reach inside and twist.

Sure, Dominance needs some mods to work (mostly, just lots of Reduced Time), but for a monster write up, just noting it down gives GMs something to look up when the inevitable questions arise. Anyway, nothing broken about leaving it out, I just like completeness.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I accidentally ended up putting my first attempt under the generic magic section, so I put a second copy under the D&D magic section. You'll probably want to either delete one, or make the two point to the same article if possible.

http://gurpswiki.wikidot.com/mag:ang...ungeon-fantasy

http://gurpswiki.wikidot.com/mag:angle-s-rpm-guidelines

Edit: NVM, I took care of it.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Yeah, just because we are talking about D&D monsters in this thread it doesn't mean that the GURPS Repository isn't open to any other monster - or other GURPS-related stuff.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

On that note, I would like to point out this page which explains a bit about how the wiki structure works.

Monsters submitted via the D&D Monster Conversion page will automatically

1. have "m:" as part of their page URL (to signify that they are Monster entries)
2. have the tag "dnd_conversion" so that the wiki knows it is a D&D/d20/Pathfinder conversion
3. have the appropriate legal disclaimer for either D&D or Pathfinder (depending on what form you used for submitting it).

Monsters submitted via the "normal" Monsters page will have (1) but not (2) or (3).

If you want to delve more deeply into how the wiki formatting works, be my guest - but in most cases all you need to know is on which page you need to submit your entry, and how to follow the instructions in the template (which should be self-explanatory).

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I just wanted to say that the collection of converted D&D monsters really helped me out yesterday.

In my "Cold Frontier" campaign, I had a "monster attack" random event for the colony. I hadn't prepared for this, so I needed to come up with a monster that could actually challenge the PCs on the fly - and the first thing that came to my mind was "dragon".

Since a green dragon was the most appropriate for the region, I took the Mature Adult Black Dragon from the wiki and reskinned it slightly. Thus, the PCs heard reports that their miners in a freshly explored area had apparently disturbed some monster, and wanted to check it out. And when they traveled there by train, they saw the dragon approaching.

What followed was an absolutely epic fight. It started with the gnome mage teleporting the nagaji ranger on the back of the dragon who then proceeded to stab the dragon while the dragon wanted to throw him off (finally succeeding when diving below the trees). Then the gnome teleported right onto the dragon's nose with the intention of throwing a fireball into the dragon's eye - only to fail his Fright Check and losing his lunch. Finally, the elf warrior mage twice evaded the dragon's clorine gas weapon by phasing out of the material plane while pummeling the dragon's skull with his greatsword, flying after him with Hawk Flight, and finally cutting off the dragon's neck.


So just to reiterate: This is a great resource, and I hope everyone keeps contributing to it.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Not my highest priority at the moment - I am focusing on monsters that could show up in my own campaign.

But feel free to take a stab at it. ;)

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Are you only converting monsters? I would be very interested in feats and advantages of the DnD/pathfinder classes :)

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

Hardly that - here is the section page of the D&D conversion efforts. Monsters are the single biggest subsection so far, but others do exist (such as the racial templates).

Admittedly, it doesn't have a page for feats and advantages, but give me until tomorrow and I will try to whip up a "Power-Ups" subsection, which is probably how we should label feats and advantages of the D&D and Pathfinder classes (I likely won't be able to do this today, though - today it's too hot to think clearly around here...).

We should probably start a separate thread for those, though - to keep this one focused on monster conversions.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

I'm working on lycanthropes at the moment, after which I'll work on the rest of Monsters & Treasure, then Greyhawk. Those monsters will take care of most of the core D&D monsters, once you take into account the monsters that are already in GURPS.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

...further work on this from my side will have to wait for a while, due to sudden impending telephone job interview.

Re: The D&D Monster Conversion Thread
 

There is no normalization going on to my knowledge. I certainly do none myself. Like you, I don't like it; then again, I run a sandbox, and expect PCs to run.

What I think happened with the wyrm black dragon is that Collective Restraint took the D&D Strength score and set it to GURPS ST. The problem with that is that the dragon in question is so big that this relationship no longer holds, and this dragon should have ST 70 or thereabouts. Personally, I would go with the dragons Faolyn made unless you (or someone) beefs up this dragon.