They say 5e is highly adaptable. As it is, I have an active dislike of 5e. Unfortunately, the people I play with seem to have this love affair with 5e currently. In that light, I am looking at ways to change 5e to play more like 3.5 D&D. My goal is to be able to run PF AP's for 5e gamers with minimal modifications to the AP.
For starters, I think it would be easier to adapt an adventure path if the characters themselves were already similar to 3.5 characters rather than straight up 5e.
In that light, I'm thinking the following changes?
For 5e characters...
Martials (Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers and Paladins) get a +1 to hit every level. Hence instead of a proficiency bonus with weapons of +2 to +6, they get a proficiency bonus with weapons of +1 to +20. This doesn't change too much except make them hit easier...other than that they still have the same number of attacks as 5e and stuff.
HOWEVER...stats are NOT capped at 20. Hence they can go up and get more damage as well.
This should make it so that martials can actually HIT creatures in a PF campaign without me actually having to adapt the creatures from Pathfinder to 5e all that much...or that's my expectation.
Other than that I think Martials should be fine?
3/4 BAB characters (Rogues, Bards, Clerics, Druids) get a proficiency bonus of X2. This makes them an oddity in that at low levels they actually may have an easier time of hitting than Martials (+4 at level 1, 6 at level 4) though it balances out by the time they hit mid levels around level 8. Alternatively I could just have the bonus after level 1 go x2 (so +2 at level 1-4, +4 at level 5...etc).
Spellcasters like the Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer advance like they do in 5e with their proficiency bonuses.
The objective of this is to run a PF AP with minimal adjustments...hence making 5e characters that can actually hit PF monsters at higher levels and survive a PF AP without having to do the entire switcheroo with 5e monsters and such. Instead just use the monsters as is, but letting them use 5e characters and such.
Makes it FAR easier for me to DM than trying to work their taste for 5e in while adapting a PF AP.
This does away a lot with the Bounded Accuracy (something I actively hate for 5e anyways) which is perhaps the most restricting thing in my view with surviving the PF AP's without any adaptation. With the simple changes above I THINK it should make it so that everything else should be easily adaptable to the PF APs.
In addition, I'd keep their saves as they are using STR/CON = Fort Save, DEX/INT=REF saves, and WIS/CHA=Will Saves. Each non-primary save gets a half proficiency bonus to the save by default.
It still makes spellcasters pretty darn deadly with spells later on in the APs though, so that may need some modifications.
PS: Luckily, I have some others that will play straight up PF these days as well, but for my older group I am still caught up with the entire 5e paradigm right now.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so you're the DM in this case?
Look, if you don't like 5e but your players are insistent on it it's okay to talk about it with them and say "Look, I get that you like 5e, but it's just not my game, I'd rather run Pathfinder if it's okay with you." You'll save yourself a lot of trouble that way: you won't be stuck running a game you don't like, and since your friends seemingly want to play 5e they might not be receptive to your ideas of house-ruling it into something more like 3.5.
Like, if they insist on 5e then it's not like you're under duress to run it? I mean, let's be frank, if you end up grudgingly agreeing to run a system you really don't enjoy, it's not going to be a good experience for you and might actually sour the game for your players as well. No gaming is always better than bad gaming, and this sounds like you're headed straight to bad gamingsville simply due to pressure on you to run a game you don't enjoy.
Tell your old group you're not really enthused about the idea of running 5e, they might find someone else to run it for them, and meanwhile keep looking for those people who actually want to play Pathfinder. It'll be a win/win for all parties involved.
If you're trying to remove bounded accuracy, you'll need to look at skills and save DCs as well. 5E players will have little chance of hitting pathfinder DCs by book 3, I'd guess (and no chance of hitting them in the higher instalments).
I run PF APs/modules in 5E and find it pretty easy to convert everything on the fly other than monsters (where I reskin a 5E monster and just add an appropriate action or two).
If it helps, my method of dealing with skill DCs is to half the PF number and add 4. I can do that on the fly and it comes out roughly right across all levels, in my experience (though there are some oddities where I tweak the formula). When it comes to saves I generally stick to 5E's typical 10/12/15/18 numbers.
|
since your friends seemingly want to play 5e they might not be receptive to your ideas of house-ruling it into something more like 3.5.
I agree. If I enjoyed 5e, and actually switched systems (from PF/3e to 5e), I wouldn't want 5e to emulate PF/3e at all.
I would highly recommend that you ask your players how they feel about something like that before you put any time and energy to this project...
Yeah, thus far they've been DMing, but now they want to have me DM again (I suppose they feel I'm a pretty good DM), but REALLY want to play 5e. I suppose part of this is my fault as I've gone along with them playing 5e for the past year...but at this point I think they are a 5e group currently.
I don't have any of the 5e modules though for starters. I don't buy 5e stuff. All I have are the PF stuff that that I hope can be compatible (I have older stuff but that seems even a bigger nightmare then PF). They stated I could make modifications if I had to in order to run my PF AP's if that's what I NEEDED to do. (I stress NEEDED to you...don't know how they would accept the changes I'm proposing).
Hence, I'm thinking it's easier to do changes on their guys than do a lot more changes in the module itself. I'm hoping I can basically sell them that it's going to be a lot easier to make a few changes on how their characters work in regards to Attack and such rather than try to convert entire modules/AP.
The idea steve states above actually sounds pretty good (about the same that I was considering...but only 1/2 instead of adding 1/2+4...which is something I'll take a look at).
Skills could be the easiest thing for me to adjust on the fly (understand the workings of skill DCs far more than the relation of AC and AB in PF/3.5 to 5e)...but I admit I haven't given it a ton of thought. What do people suggest in regards to skills or is the above thought good?
From what I can tell, they like it because it plays like a simpler form of 3e. Also it appears that they like it purely because it has D&D as the namebrand instead of something else.
They also seem to like the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Mostly it's about the simpler take on the rules from what I gather though.
Ironic that they want to play 5e rather than B/X or BECMI though...as I think that system is simpler...but they like the 3eism's of 5e. They don't like the descending score to hit, the save system, or other things of the older systems, the thieves skills, the fighters only fighting (as in hitting is the main gist of all the fighter does without other options I guess), and how AC is descending instead of Ascending.
They also feel 5e has more choices of race and class than BECMI or BX, whilst remaining rather simple in it's feel.
They also like that they don't feel like they have to min/max (I never enforced min/maxing with PF or 3.5 either...but hey) with 5e....that they are more open to roleplay as they wish without having to worry about whether they are Hulk (Hulk strongest there is mime). Basically, they have less to care about in regards to min/max out their characters which they feel allows them to focus on other areas.
|
|
Yeah, thus far they've been DMing, but now they want to have me DM again (I suppose they feel I'm a pretty good DM), but REALLY want to play 5e. I suppose part of this is my fault as I've gone along with them playing 5e for the past year...but at this point I think they are a 5e group currently.
I'll reiterate: you shouldn't be under any duress from your friends to run a system you don't enjoy. The fact that you've "gone along" with them playing 5e before isn't any reason not to have a mature conversation about this now: "Hey guys, playing 5e with you guys has made me realize it just isn't my game. I really appreciate the fact that you'd like me to DM, but I'd rather run something I really enjoy rather than running a game I'm not all that enthused about."
I mean, the fact that they seem to think you're a good DM should give a bit more weight to this.
The reason I'm hammering on this point is that by the tone of your posts you seem to have quite an active distaste for 5e, and if I were in your situation (I'm at most lukewarm towards 5e myself but I wouldn't call it an active distaste) I'd much rather not run a game at all than be forced to run a game I don't personally enjoy.
E: Obviously, when you have this conversation with your friends try not to be an edition warrior about it, because you'll turn it into a shouting match in no time.
"Hey guys, I'd rather not run 5e because it's not really my system..."
"Oh, okay, what don't you like about the system?"
"THE FACT THAT IT'S WATERED DOWN DUMB BABBY TABLETOP DOTA OR SOMETHING!!!"
Don't do that.
The purpose of gaming is to have fun. What is fun for you?
Removing the edition-warring aspects, the issue here seems to be:
What's the easiest way to run an adventure written for Pathfinder using 5E, given that Pathfinder stat blocks aren't written with Bounded Accuracy etc in mind?
It would be a whole heck of a lot easier to incorporate elements of 5e into 3.5/PF than rewrite 5e.
It doesn't seem that hard to have 5e done the way I put it above. Overall 3.5 and PF have a LOT more in common than any other game system with the exception of MAYBE 4e.
Supposedly 5e was made to be a toolbox in order to allow just these types of changes. The group is pretty set to run 5e, I could put my foot down...
But I've been gaming with them for a little while. I don't think I want to just drop the group because they don't want to play the game I want. I also feel if they really want to run 5e, then I shouldn't put my own fun (one person) above all the others (6 people). Making me have more fun than they would...doesn't quite seem right.
On the otherhand I AM DMing. They should understand (I hope) that I have to run it off the materials I have. I don't have modules for 5e, that means I run with what I have (1e, 2e, 3.5 and PF). Only 3.5/PF seem easy enough to adapt with a minimal amount of changes, at least from what I've seen (and listed) above. They can have a big impact, but from what I've seen, 1e and 2e fighters hit all the time in regards to other classes anyways...so that's actually MORE like a Classic D&D game everyone brags about with 5e than 5e has replicated.
My primary gig that I get out of this is simply actually gaming (I am of the party that gaming, regardless of what system, is better than NO gaming at all) with a bunch of people I know...even if I actively dislike (more like hate) the system they have been using recently (primarily because I hate bounded accuracy...point blank. I don't mind most other things, and having everyone progress in proficiency in regards to bounded accuracy the same is simply something I literally despise).
My changes ARE to weaken that bounded accuracy to the point I can actually digest running the game without the metaphoric puking my brains out...but with the reasoning that it actually makes running a PF AP doable without really having to do much work at finding and adapting the monsters and enemies. I can use most of them as is in the books (I hope).
Of course, the other aspect is with the changes I'm hoping they accept, to figure out which AP is the best to run with. I have about one week to figure it out...no idea which AP to run. Maybe I'll just do a module and reduce how long I have to DM this...
I don't see NOT running 5e as a solution as putting my desires over everyone else's seems particularly selfish on my part. If they allow me to adapt it so that I can do a PF/5e Hybrid, at least I can have some fun with it in regards to running it in Golarion...which is my hope. I have far too many PF APs and Modules laying about, so at least getting to run those, even if I have to do it in a 5e rules, is a win for me.
PS: I would add, if 5e had options to do away with this entire bounded accuracy thing...and run it otherwise I might actually be a real fan of 5e. It really is my dislike of BA that drives my dislike of 5e...and makes the core rules not as compatible with other systems. Without that, I think 5e might do as they have stated which is to be easily compatible with every prior edition that has come out. I really do like the Second wind ideas and Advantage/Disadvantage concepts. BA just rears it's head (Especially the point of everyone advancing with their proficiencies at the same rate...bends my belief too far to be able to accept that a soldier training isn't going to be able to hit a bullseye any easier than a professor's of magic...only their raw abilities make the difference) in certain aspects that make me really uncomfortable and make me hate the system. IF they allow me to make the changes I've listed, I think it actually addresses the problems I have with 5e as well!
As long as they aren't so connected to BA that they disallow it...as I think I'd be keeping a bulk of the 5e rules and ideas beyond the bending of BA that I'd be doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'll be interesting to see if they go for it. For me, bounded accuracy is the best thing about it, so I wouldn't see the point in playing "unbounded 5E". It would be like playing Pathfinder without many character building options.
Another change I've found myself making is to increase the number of opponents. Four or five 5E characters can deal massive amounts of damage on just one foe, in our experience - especially at higher levels. They're also pretty hard to kill. I found encounters worked better with more enemies or with the one key enemy plus some henchmen.
Our DM converted RotRL to 5E. He said it was pretty easy and also pretty quick. It's been a real fun campaign, and also our first introduction to 5E.
But if you don't like it, you don't like it. :-(
I guess your group is going to compromise on which system to use or which person will GM or DM. Hopefully you can all be happy.
|
Two things...
Firstly, bounded accuracy being replaced by only giving the big bonus to Martians could really hinder the non martial races. Like it or not, the idea of BA is that all classes should have an equal chance to hit and do damage; the difference at times lies in what happens when the hit lands. Taking this away would see a return of touch attack mechanics and relying on more save vs effects, which 5e really brought down in efficacy (or up, if you weren't a PF optimizer). I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, but you have to realize that it will have a ripple effect.
Secondly, you really should consider either running 1e or 2e modules or adventures. They are exceptionally easy to plug into 5e. Alternately, just about anything from Raging Swan will fit the bill, and their catalogue is suited for anything from adventures to encounters to premise villages. I do an exceedingly little amount of work to adapt them to my 5e games, and the magic item payout is already light enough to fit in.
Just good for thought. I suppose Frog God Games might work similarly, but I won't know until I unleash Rappan Athul on my group.
Actually, that's a good point about the non-martials. If you want to go with your +1/level "pseudo-BAB", GreyWolfLord, you should probably use the same rate for spellcasters spell attack bonus (stat+level rather than stat+prof) as most 5E spells attack armor class.
Another way to retain bounded accuracy but avoid the issue you have with wizards and non-fighter martials hitting as often at low levels would be to allow one stat (or perhaps two stats) that your proficiency applies to. So my wizard gets his proficiency bonus with spell attacks but not melee/missile. Similarly a fighter adds proficiency to Str+Dex weapon attacks (or similar). That might have fewer ripple effects than boosting the proficiency bonus so significantly for some classes (since it only really penalises people in fields they're unlikely to do anyhow).
Granted that moves away from substituting PF monsters directly, but there's probably an easy enough logarithmic conversion of PF Armor Class to 5E Armor Class. When I convert PF monsters to 5E and don't reskin (which is rare) I just make up something reasonable. 5E has such a narrow band of AC that even if you get it wrong, it's not very far off.
I considered the power and rogues...in regards to how well they hit compared from 5e to PF. You may be right...I'm not positive though.
I'm not certain why it would affect spellcasters all that much. Most of the spells at higher levels that are good don't rely on hitting with an attack bonus, and I don't see them getting into all that much fighting at higher levels.
Maybe I'm missing something with that though...but for spellcasters at least it didn't appear they'd lose all that much (Especially at higher levels).
With the Rogues and such getting a X2 proficiency bonus, it actually gets them close to what they'd get in PF or 3.5 in turns of hitting, which should keep them pretty good. At lower levels they probably will actually have an easier time of hitting than anyone else...which is a problem with my idea though.
With spellcasters...they seem to actually gain power pretty significantly at higher levels anyways...and in many ways their spells at the high levels don't seem as nerfed as some people think they are (which isn't a problem...but they do gain quite a bit of power there).
However, as I'm not as familiar with 5e as other systems, it could be that I've missed something. In that light I could see the one or two stats be as significant in hitting. It sounds a lot like the 4e system that is being proposed there? Would a +1/2 level be enough in that case or would you go full 1/1 as a martial? I suppose that would be Int for Wizards, CHA for Warlocks and Sorcerers?
On another topic brought up....
.
.
.
.
.
As to why I haven't chosen the older systems...1e and 2 simply don't work nice with 5e. I know people say all this about them, but personally, adapting them correctly seems to NOT work...period.
5e is basically 3e with a different D20 base worked in. It seems pretty easy to adapt.
It would be EASIER for me to actually adapt PF or 3e to 1e than it would be to adapt 5e. I'm looking for something easier...Looking up every single friggen monster and encounter and trap (remember, thieves were percentage based in 1e and 2e) and just about EVERY rule based encounter just to adapt...that's exactly what I'm trying to AVOID, which is why PF seems a LOT easier. PF and 5e are built on the same D20 base when you get to the heart of it, whilst 1e and 2e are definitely not even on the same plane (regarding rules, stats, and encounters as well as treasure and a bunch of other things) as 5e. I don't see the rules similarities that others do (so perhaps they see things I don't) and hence adaptation in that regards is like trying to convert any other system (say Gurps, or ICE, or Runescape, or FATE) to 5e. They really are so separate that I'd not be using any of the stats or numbers meaning that module prep goes from minimal to headache level.
I looked into it and got confused as to why people seem to think it's so easy when it appears that I'd have to basically toss everything but the text if I wanted to adapt adventures for 5e from 1e to 2e, which is why I chose NOT to go that route. I'm not putting down what apparently they see, but for me, these systems simply are not even remotely similar. Hence, for ME (rather than others) to adapt it, I might as well design my own adventure if I wanted to use it...and that's something I'm specifically NOT wanting to do (why I'm using modules). Hopefully that explains why I chose PF/3.5 over 1e or 2e. For me...I'm looking at something I can adapt easily...and I can't do that with 1e and 2e in relation to 5e.
I haven't heard about raging swan press however, but I WILL look into it.
I considered the power and rogues...in regards to how well they hit compared from 5e to PF. You may be right...I'm not positive though.
I'm not certain why it would affect spellcasters all that much. Most of the spells at higher levels that are good don't rely on hitting with an attack bonus, and I don't see them getting into all that much fighting at higher levels.
Maybe I'm missing something with that though...but for spellcasters at least it didn't appear they'd lose all that much (Especially at higher levels).
With the Rogues and such getting a X2 proficiency bonus, it actually gets them close to what they'd get in PF or 3.5 in turns of hitting, which should keep them pretty good. At lower levels they probably will actually have an easier time of hitting than anyone else...which is a problem with my idea though.
With spellcasters...they seem to actually gain power pretty significantly at higher levels anyways...and in many ways their spells at the high levels don't seem as nerfed as some people think they are (which isn't a problem...but they do gain quite a bit of power there).
I think a key point to remember is that you don't gain many spell slots - so the high level spells are quite good, but you can't cast that many of them.
In our experience, the high level casters quite often used their cantrips (whose damage scales). If they're trying to hit armor class 30 or 40 or something, they'll pretty much have no hope without the +1/level you're considering for martials.
BA just rears it's head (Especially the point of everyone advancing with their proficiencies at the same rate...bends my belief too far to be able to accept that a soldier training isn't going to be able to hit a bullseye any easier than a professor's of magic...So this is the crux of the issue, GWL?
Remove all weapon proficiencies from full casters, and most from 3/4 casters: wizards/sorcerers will not hit a bullseye that easily (since at 20th level, the fighter has +6 difference). Let them keep proficiencies to spell attacks.The problem is (I daresay) solved from this side.
That would be a good approach if you were using 5E monsters. However, I think an important part of GreyWolfLord's plan is to use Pathfinder modules without having to convert the monsters. So their AC is going to be outside what bounded accuracy anticipates.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, and I thought my D&D group was out of this worldTwo things...
Firstly, bounded accuracy being replaced by only giving the big bonus to Martians could really hinder the non martial races.
What I get for hastily replying by phone...
But I digress. I can't stress enough how much easier it is to convert monsters than it is to convert classes. Usually it is just of using the same monster out of the Monster Manual and maybe adding one or two mooks to even things out.
Man, and I thought my D&D group was out of this worldTwo things...
Firstly, bounded accuracy being replaced by only giving the big bonus to Martians could really hinder the non martial races.
What I get for hastily replying by phone...
But I digress. I can't stress enough how much easier it is to convert monsters than it is to convert classes. Usually it is just of using the same monster out of the Monster Manual and maybe adding one or two mooks to even things out.
There's a lot of more monsters in PF than there are in 5e...and many aren't found in 5e. There ARE rules of monster construction for them in 5e, but that's even more work than looking them up.
In my opinion, it's easier to simply do the handwaving of a class before we even play, and then have it planned out from the first session onwards like that then trying to figure all the monsters (and it's not just the monsters, it's other encounters as well) and stuff out through an entire AP. (a single module is easier, but I'm not sure if the time vs. transition is worth it. If I can figure out the class conversions now, if I ever want to run a 5e in a PF AP or 3.5 module again...I already have the work done rather than having to do all the monsters in the AP or module anew).
But that's my uneducated opinion (at this point, haven't had the experience yet to say whether I can even pull off this class conversion thing and run 5e otherwise in a PF AP unchanged...or whether I'm bottling disaster up in a bottle to explode at some unforeseen future date).
Steve Geddes seems to understand exactly what I'm trying to do and has had some really good suggestions thus far.
Which AP do you think would be the best one to run with the ideas I have (saying the group accepts my ideas)?
I considered the power and rogues...in regards to how well they hit compared from 5e to PF. You may be right...I'm not positive though.
I'm not certain why it would affect spellcasters all that much. Most of the spells at higher levels that are good don't rely on hitting with an attack bonus, and I don't see them getting into all that much fighting at higher levels.
Maybe I'm missing something with that though...but for spellcasters at least it didn't appear they'd lose all that much (Especially at higher levels).
With the Rogues and such getting a X2 proficiency bonus, it actually gets them close to what they'd get in PF or 3.5 in turns of hitting, which should keep them pretty good. At lower levels they probably will actually have an easier time of hitting than anyone else...which is a problem with my idea though.
With spellcasters...they seem to actually gain power pretty significantly at higher levels anyways...and in many ways their spells at the high levels don't seem as nerfed as some people think they are (which isn't a problem...but they do gain quite a bit of power there).
I think a key point to remember is that you don't gain many spell slots - so the high level spells are quite good, but you can't cast that many of them.
In our experience, the high level casters quite often used their cantrips (whose damage scales). If they're trying to hit armor class 30 or 40 or something, they'll pretty much have no hope without the +1/level you're considering for martials.
What if I kept it as the first post, but made it so the cantrips were autohit? So if you cast a cantrip you are guaranteed of hitting your target?
Or, as you suggested, if they use a cantrip they can use their INT (or CHA depending on the spellcaster) as their primary modifier and get the equivalent of the fighters bonus to hit with their cantrip?
|
|
If it helps, there is a guy on wordpress that is doing Iron Gods, and has done a very impressive job at converting most of the monsters to 5e.
Here is a LINK
If it helps, there is a guy on wordpress that is doing Iron Gods, and has done a very impressive job at converting most of the monsters to 5e.
Here is a LINK
Thanks
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm...
The differences in Pathfinder math and 5E math go pretty deep. Tread carefully.
For instance, for enemy AC, Pathfinder math includes a lot more than just the PCs' BAB. For instance, a full martial is expected to add not only his level (BAB) to his attack rolls, but also an enhancement bonus (higher as you level), stat boosters (eventually a +6 item and +6 worth of tomes or whatever on top of the natural score), typically some type of class-granted bonus (rage, weapon training, favored enemy, etc) that 5E doesn't have, and lots of possibilities for buffs that don't work the same in 5E.
If all you do is convert 5E's proficiency into full BAB and then put them against Pathfinder monsters, your martials are going to get less and less accurate as the game progresses. (Even worse for your 3/4 BAB folks, who under your double-proficiency idea cap out at +12 instead of +15, in addition to all the other issues.)
This goes the other way, too. What armor will your PCs be wearing to defend against Pathfinder's attack bonuses? In both 5E and Pathfinder, AC is (outside of DEX) entirely gear-dependent. Well, 5E's armor will lead to dead PCs if the monsters are unmodified, so you'll have to use Pathfinder gear. But now you're reintroducing things like Armor Check Penalty and speed reduction—or do you leave those out? And then there's the different types of shields; which shields are clerics proficient in? What about 3rd-level Valor bards? Multiclass fighters? And that's to say nothing of the poor barbarian's and monk's Unarmored Defense features, which are gonna screw up the math as well.
And what about the fact that the Pathfinder monsters will have normal AC, flat-footed AC, and touch AC; but none of the PCs have touch attacks and the 5E rules never deny anyone their DEX to AC? Now all the considerations you gave to the martials have to apply to spell attacks as well.
Furthermore, some of the partial-casters got shuffled around a bit. For instance, you listed bards as a 3/4 BAB class, but did you notice that in 5E they're a full 9-level caster? (And if you shift them to whatever paradigm you pick for full casters, what happens if a player becomes a valor bard, gaining armor/shield proficiencies and an extra attack?) Did you notice that rangers and paladins are now half-casters? Did you notice that fighters and rogues can become casters at 3rd level without multiclassing? How does all that factor in? And what about those weird warlocks?
And that's just the attack/AC math.
There's still skills, whose DCs (in Pathfinder) assume a bonus of 3+level+stat for a competent character, and higher for a specialist. You'll have to completely throw out the proficiency system here and replace it with something more like Pathfinder. And then, if you get a system in place for that, what do you do about the bard's Jack of All Trades, or the bard's/rogue's Expertise?
Plus, the AP will call for checks that just plain old don't exist in 5E. Are you going to convert those to 5E skills or are you going to replace the 5E skill list with the Pathfinder skill list? If the former, then you're converting the AP after all. If the latter, then you now have to go back and rework every single class's skill list (including the number of skills gained), and do the same for all the backgrounds.
Now, let's move on to saves. A proficient 5E save is equivalent to a Pathfinder poor save, so obviously that will need to be revised (plus the same stat/gear/buff issues as with the attack math). So for your PCs to have any reasonable chance at passing saves, you have to re-write the math. Ah, but all the monster abilities are gonna target Fort/Ref/Will, but the PCs are working with stat-based saves. Do you just map Fort to CON, Ref to DEX, and Will to WIS? Okay, but now every single class has only one good save (i.e., fighter gets STR/CON, so only CON matters). Is that okay? If not, then you've got to rewrite every class's saves too.
Then there's the save DCs for the PCs' spells/abilities. To match monster saves, you're going to need DCs that scale at about half-level or so. To do that, are you going to go back to spell-level-based DCs, or stick with the 5E paradigm of a single DC?
Then of course there's the non-DC-based issues with magic. What happens when the PCs encounter SR? They sure don't have the tools to overcome it; heck, they don't even have a CL to make a check with! What about energy resistances? The PCs' spells will be balanced around the assumption of "resistance = half damage", while Pathfinder monsters' resistances will be assuming static reductions. On top of that, the size of those static reductions will be based on Pathfinder spell damage, which is waaaaay higher than what your 5E PCs' spells can put out. (That is, Resist Fire 10 is a lot different against a CL 10 Pathfinder fireball compared to a 5E fireball.)
What happens when a monster or enemy caster uses a spell that works differently between the two games? What if they use one that doesn't exist? What happens if they use one that produces effects that there aren't even mechanics for (like stat damage, negative levels, etc)? What happens when an obstacle (combat-based or not) assumes that PCs of that level will have access to certain spells/effects to deal with it, but those spells/effects either don't exist on a 5E character or are far more costly in 5E (such as with the concentration mechanic)?
But wait, there's more! How do crits work? Do the PCs auto-crit on a 20 regardless of weapon and multiply just the dice? Do the monsters threaten at various ranges and then roll to confirm, and multiply modifiers by anything from x2 to x4? Does one side borrow the other's crit mechanics? What about AoOs? The PCs abilities will be balanced around the idea that only movement provokes, and so there's no such thing as casting defensively or feats to remove AoOs from combat maneuvers. If a PC bard and NPC bard stand next to each other with shortswords and try to cast spells, which one of them provokes? Neither? Both? What about damage bonuses on attacks? The 5E PCs will have waaaaaay less HP than the Pathfinder monsters' statblocks are assuming. Meanwhile, the Pathfinder monsters' HP will be expecting the 5E PCs to be hitting a lot harder. The list goes on.
Now, let's suppose that you solve all of those problems, even managing to get the math to work out right.
Awesome!
But now you have to throw out advantage/disadvantage too. See, A/D works in 5E specifically because of bounded accuracy. Since in 5E there's still often a chance of failure with a middling roll or success with a high-ish roll, A/D is a boost, but not a guarantee. It's not at all unheard of for a 5E creature to fail with advantage or succeed with disadvantage. But with Pathfinder math? Advantage is a lot stronger when you only fail on a 4 or less than when you fail on a 9 or less. Disadvantage is a lot nastier when you need an 18+ than when you need a 12+. There's a reason so many Pathfinder GMs hate Misfortune.
In 5E's math, A/D turns "moderate chance" into "strong odds". In Pathfinder's math, A/D turns "slim chance" into "virtual guarantee". And that's before we even get into Pathfinder math's ability to have skill DCs where one PC auto-succeeds and another auto-fails, such that giving A/D to them changes nothing.
Given all the things you'd have to modify in order to get a set of pseudo-5E characters to actually function beyond the first couple of levels in a mostly-unmodified Pathfinder AP, I think you're better off trying to distill what exactly it is you prefer about Pathfinder, and see if there's a better way to get that feel than to match 5E PCs to Pathfinder APs.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good catches, Jiggy. I didn't even think about how much of a bonus machine Pathfinder is outside of BAB. Magic items, feats, class features...
Something a lot of people fail to realize with Pathfinder is that your gear is every bit as much a part of your expected character progression as your level is. Wealth is basically a second XP track that runs in parallel with actual XP.
The fundamental structure of the game is built around the idea that various numbers are regularly incremented not just by level-based bonuses, but also through bonus-granting magic items.
Whenever you see a thread where a GM points at a player who'd really like his 8th-level character to have a stat-booster by now and cries "player entitlement"; or whenever someone rolls their eyes at a player whose attack bonus includes numbers other than BAB and STR and busts out the usual optimization-related pejoratives; or when someone complains about the lack of awe and mystique when their players found a +1 sword and just wanted to cash it in at the magic mart; you're usually looking at a case of someone not grasping that fundamental element of how Pathfinder works.
(And frankly, it's a big part of the reason I left Pathfinder.)
Converting monsters on the fly is dead easy, if you play it loose and fast and your players don't mind. Chapter 9 in the DMG gives expected AC, hit points and a damage range per level. Each class had some "trademark" features that you drop in (such as extended crit range for a champion) and you are away. Flavour from there and drop in some monster features from a similar monster, or spell effect. If you are trying to do a math perfect conversion then I can't help you as I don't run my games that way.
I can usually convert the "essence" of a Pathfinder monster in 30 seconds (hint print out the table from the DMG and a collection of the more common monster abilities).
Good catches, Jiggy. I didn't even think about how much of a bonus machine Pathfinder is outside of BAB. Magic items, feats, class features...Something a lot of people fail to realize with Pathfinder is that your gear is every bit as much a part of your expected character progression as your level is. Wealth is basically a second XP track that runs in parallel with actual XP.
The fundamental structure of the game is built around the idea that various numbers are regularly incremented not just by level-based bonuses, but also through bonus-granting magic items.
Whenever you see a thread where a GM points at a player who'd really like his 8th-level character to have a stat-booster by now and cries "player entitlement"; or whenever someone rolls their eyes at a player whose attack bonus includes numbers other than BAB and STR and busts out the usual optimization-related pejoratives; or when someone complains about the lack of awe and mystique when their players found a +1 sword and just wanted to cash it in at the magic mart; you're usually looking at a case of someone not grasping that fundamental element of how Pathfinder works.
(And frankly, it's a big part of the reason I left Pathfinder.)
Since it would be a PF AP unmodified (characters are modified) they would be getting the gear from a PF AP. They'd be about as in need of gear as any other character in a PF AP.
Gear isn't really a problem in the PF AP, the advancement of BAB and Stats were.
NOW if it were the reverse (PF characters in a 5e AP or module) I could see some very real problems in regards to gear perhaps...but oddly enough with a PF AP, I think that many AP's hand out enough gear that it probably isn't going to be that much of a worry.
I could be wrong, but even when we haven't bought gear with PF characters, it seems we find enough in the APs we've played that we don't have to worry. the AP's hand out enough gear to keep up with the flow normally...so I'm not to afraid of that with 5e characters.
Even in 5e we regularly have had characters that have AC up to 30 and BAB's up to 15 or 16 on a regular basis...sooooo...even in 5e this group likes their magic gear and stuff...enough that some would say it breaks 5e's intent at times.
I don't think they'll have a problem with PF's AP gear hand outs either. It's more the entire varied leveling of AB that I'm concerned about. Still won't know how they like it until later this week.
Hmm...
The differences in Pathfinder math and 5E math go pretty deep. Tread carefully.
For instance, for enemy AC, Pathfinder math includes a lot more than just the PCs' BAB. For instance, a full martial is expected to add not only his level (BAB) to his attack rolls, but also an enhancement bonus (higher as you level), stat boosters (eventually a +6 item and +6 worth of tomes or whatever on top of the natural score), typically some type of class-granted bonus (rage, weapon training, favored enemy, etc) that 5E doesn't have, and lots of possibilities for buffs that don't work the same in 5E.
If all you do is convert 5E's proficiency into full BAB and then put them against Pathfinder monsters, your martials are going to get less and less accurate as the game progresses. (Even worse for your 3/4 BAB folks, who under your double-proficiency idea cap out at +12 instead of +15, in addition to all the other issues.)
This goes the other way, too. What armor will your PCs be wearing to defend against Pathfinder's attack bonuses? In both 5E and Pathfinder, AC is (outside of DEX) entirely gear-dependent. Well, 5E's armor will lead to dead PCs if the monsters are unmodified, so you'll have to use Pathfinder gear. But now you're reintroducing things like Armor Check Penalty and speed reduction—or do you leave those out? And then there's the different types of shields; which shields are clerics proficient in? What about 3rd-level Valor bards? Multiclass fighters? And that's to say nothing of the poor barbarian's and monk's Unarmored Defense features, which are gonna screw up the math as well.
And what about the fact that the Pathfinder monsters will have normal AC, flat-footed AC, and touch AC; but none of the PCs have touch attacks and the 5E rules never deny anyone their DEX to AC? Now all the considerations you gave to the martials have to apply to spell attacks as well.
Furthermore, some of the partial-casters got shuffled around a bit. For instance, you listed bards as a 3/4 BAB class,...
I've been mixing editions (B/X, 1e, 2e, 3x, PF & now 5e) for years.
Let me tell you, a lot of that is just over thinking the problem.*Q:What type of shields are clerics proficient with? A: Shields - as defined in the 5e PHB. So a +2 on AC.
*Armor check penalties to skills... Who cares? It becomes one less thing to worry about.
*So the module calls for some kind of skill check that doesn't exist 5e? Easy, it's a stat check based upon whatever the PF skill is based upon. (though you'll want to determine if any kind of bonus applies)
*Fireballs, etc. Why would this be a question? The spell is defined in the PHB being used - in this case the 5e version.
*Other spells not in 5e: Does it have a save? if so, follow the spell rules in 5e for affecting targets (save DC = 8 + stat mod + proficiency bonus). Does it require a to-hit roll? If so, follow the procedure in the 5e PHB (d20 + casting stat + prof bonus. Then apply effects.
etc
etc
etc
On ACs & really high DCs - if it looks too high? Just eyeball it & drop it by about 5 points or so. You want it to be a tough enough # that the PCs have to roll, but still something they can achieve. It's not that hard.
Essentially sit your PF rulebook aside & only refer to it for spell effects not listed in 5e.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That doesn't accomplish the OP's goal, though. You're converting a PF adventure to 5E, which I agree is super easy, for exactly the reasons you state.
But what he's wanting to do is change the PCs to be able to play an unmodified Pathfinder AP. And that requires all those considerations I was talking about.
That doesn't accomplish the OP's goal, though. You're converting a PF adventure to 5E, which I agree is super easy, for exactly the reasons you state.
But what he's wanting to do is change the PCs to be able to play an unmodified Pathfinder AP. And that requires all those considerations I was talking about.
No, not really. Since it is unmodified, it means that they will be getting the same treasure a PF character would. They get the same WBL...I'm not modifiying to remove any treasure.
Hence, it is sort of mystifying to my what you are saying...
ANYWAYS...did a test run with two buds from really early today till now of the Dragon's Demand.
They absolutely CRUSHED the module. Like, completely annihilated it...and I discovered an undiscovered side effect that may make martials a tad stronger than I originally thought.
As they get all the stuff/treasure in the module, that actually is not a problem at all.
The Rogues WERE stronger overall in combat...but surprisingly enough the Martials and Clerics were as well.
The fact comes from the multiple attacks they get. The Cleric was a War Domain, which meant they were able to get quite a number of double attacks as long as they rested.
Martials also had a suprising number of attacks, and by the time they were 5th level were getting two to three attacks a round.
The difference is if you have a 6th level PF martial you typically could have an (STR 20 [+5] + (+1 or +2 Wpn) + other factors (+1) + +6 BAB) around +13 to hit. This means you'll probably have a +13/+8 to hit.
The Martials with 5e could have (if use the 15 default array instead of the otherwise) (STR 19 [+4] + (+1 or +2 wpn) + other factors (+1) + 6 BAB) around a +12 BAB. This makes a +12/+12/+12 to hit. That actually makes a LOAD of difference that I didn't realize...as I said, the completely CRUSHED the module.
Of course Dragons Demand only takes on up to 7th level (or today it did) max from what we could see...and it was an extremely rush job (rush as fast as we could just to test it and my ideas).
At low levels they may actually be stronger than the normal characters? Do you think this will even out at higher levels? Spellcasters aren't as strong as PF ones at higher levels in many ways...and the higher levels seem more reliant on this spellcaster ideology at times...
Of course the AP's are built for normal groups (rather than min/max) to get through, so perhaps it isn't as rough.
Still, a tad unexpected in a result.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That doesn't accomplish the OP's goal, though. You're converting a PF adventure to 5E, which I agree is super easy, for exactly the reasons you state.
But what he's wanting to do is change the PCs to be able to play an unmodified Pathfinder AP. And that requires all those considerations I was talking about.
No, not really. Since it is unmodified, it means that they will be getting the same treasure a PF character would. They get the same WBL...I'm not modifiying to remove any treasure.
Hence, it is sort of mystifying to my what you are saying...
So, the part about gear was the only part of my essay-length post that you read?
ANYWAYS...did a test run with two buds from really early today till now of the Dragon's Demand.
They absolutely CRUSHED the module.
You have now discovered WHY Pathfinder math is set up so that as you level up, the full-BAB classes get closer and closer to hitting on a 2: if they don't, then their iteratives become a joke. Pathfinder is set up so that eventually, the first attack is a gimme, then the second has good odds, then the third not so great, and the fourth is unlikely.
Take away the descending-BAB structure of the full-attack, and Pathfinder math is totally broken. That's why 5E characters don't have the same base accuracy as Pathfinder martials: so you can have multiple same-bonus attacks.
Dragon's Demand is probably a good test field for stabbing things, but as I remember it, there's not much in the way of skill checks or... really much else at all besides stabbing things. Over the course of an AP, though, you're likely to run into all kinds of issues that Dragon's Demand didn't really test for you (i.e., everything from my earlier post except PC attack math and gear).
I sincerely wish you the best with your game, but I really think you've got some blinders on and you're going to be in for a rude awakening in the second or third book (or sooner).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not really a surprise, GreyWolfLord. You've often commented on the fact that everyone gets the same proficiency and how that doesn't sit well with you (since a soldier should be better at fighting than a mage). What I think you're seeing is that 5E models that effectiveness differently.
It feels like proficiency is the equivalent of BAB, but they're actually different things. We've found fighters, in particular, to be hugely effective in battle compared with the other classes, despite having the same proficiency. It's the class features (multiple attacks being a big one, but also action surge and the fighting styles).
In terms of porting over PF wealth, I presume that means you're not using the attunement mechanic and the limit of three "significant" items?
With regard to low level 5E characters, I think they're definitely stronger than low level PF characters (especially if you consider levels 1 and 2 as apprenticeship/learn-the-game levels - now that we're used to it, I'm beginning my campaigns at level three). However, it feels to me that high level 5E characters are much, much weaker.
I think one unequivocal difference is that it is much, much harder to die in 5E. (Barring levels one and two which can have some swingy moments, in our experience).
It seems to me that the 5E 1-20 spread is more like PF's 2-11 spread.
Having said that, I'm always wary of comparing systems in such a direct way - they're not really trying to replicate the same feel, in my view. Hence, they don't try and do quite the same thing. Even the concepts of character level, hit points, armor class and so forth are subtly different in the two systems, imo.
I think 5E's upper tier monsters are also weaker than PF's upper tier monsters.
I agree about the higher level monsters. However this may be a thematic thing they are going for, not sure. The vast majority of high CR creatures in 5e feel to me like they are powerful but still defeatable, given solid tactics and a sufficient number of opponents. PF monsters, especially high CR ones are essentially invulnerable more from pure math than abilities.
I've also noticed a lot of the PF monsters have lost a lot of versatility.
The bone devil loses its invisibility and fly spells, which I thought were pretty iconic for what they did, and will add to their repertoire of options if/when I run them.
I also really hate the 5th Edition monster design rules. I wish they were built the same way PCs were, with proficiency bonus based on hit dice, etc. They don't even really use their hit dice for anything anymore. Maybe 1 in 100 encounters will last long enough for NPCs to spend hit dice. Otherwise, they're just buckets of hit points based on CR, with some adjustments made to CR due to AC and saving throws and stuff.
I abandoned both the monster building and encounter building rules pretty quickly - both came out quite weak when I tried to run RAW (although perhaps I'm just less tactically effective than my players).
I had good results reading over a PF monster and inventing appropriate actions/bonus actions to preserve the theme. I did find that high level spellcasting monsters were a little underpowered due to no metamagic. I found myself granting a lot of them some spells as bonus actions (and letting them ignore the "only one spell per round" rule), just to keep things mildly challenging. (The legendary and lair actions were a good rule here too).
That's true. I really like legendary and lair actions. They let a single monster challenge a party of 6, and they break up the action between the PCs and a monster. Reactions are also a key feature in keeping battles dynamic.
I also like the idea of having hit dice being based on creature size.
How did the game go, GreyWolfLord? Did the players like the changes? Did you think it worked the way you were imagining?
They were hesitant, but went along with it. I think they are considering buying me one of the 5e modules and giving it to me for free though...
Basically they are willing "to give it a shot" but haven't made a final determination.
Overall, everything went smoothly thus far. right now running 2nd darkness and made it through the first part of the module.