Old People! (Converting old AD&D material to Pathfinder)

[gnoams]

I think it's important also to note than most of those old ad&d adventures were designed for a party of six to eight characters.

[TxSam88]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Maybe this isn't such a great idea. :(

AD&D (especially early AD&D) had some very different ideas about encounter balancing.

For example:
T-1 Village of Hommlet ... and adventure I had fond memories of.
* - The very first encounter at the Moathouse (page 13 of the module): 6 giant frogs (AD&D Monster Manual, p41) - 2 with 2HD & 4 with 1HD
Attempting to Replicate this with Pathfinder 1st:
* - 6 giant frogs (Pathfinder Bestiary, p135) - 2 adults (C1 each) & 4 small (Giant Frogs with the "young" template - CR½ each) - this would be a CR 5 for a beginning module?

It gets even better.
The first room of the dungeon level (see page 14) are TWO Green Slimes - each a CR4 hazard in PF1 rules (Pathfinder Core, p416).

Now if the party reaches the boss of the dungeon ... This triggers a "ring event!"
* - (Area 16) This starts with a Lvl2 warrior and six Lvl1 warriors (equivalent to CR3½)
But, their "hooting" brings reinforcements (from area 17)
* - another Lvl2 warrior and six Lvl1 warriors (equivalent to CR3½)
And then ...
* - another Lvl2 warrior and six Lvl1 warriors (equivalent to CR3½)
and finally,
* - The "master" a Lvl5 Evil Cleric (CR4 - or CR5 if you give him eht boosted stats implied by the encounter) and his Lvl4 Warrior lieutenant/Bodyguard (CR5 or CR5+ if you boost the leader).

This event would kill a APL 1 party, even if at full strength (and it would be highly dangerous even for an APL 3 party).

So, converting from AD&D to Pathfinder needs to be done with care. And, sometimes, as in this case, it shouldn't be done at all.

I've also discovered that an experienced set of players with an optimized 1st level party, with 1 additional player, could easily handle that 6 frog encounter (Cr6)... so I would have no fear running that as is .

[Hugo Rune]

Re:T1-4. I've run that under 1e, 3.5 and pf1 rules. It's designed for a party of 6-8 characters plus NPCs. From memory, most of encounters in the lower level of the moathouse are around CR7. Between the greater number of characters and negative hit points, lethality is not really a problem - sure 1 or 2 characters go negative during a battle but between the heal skill and positive channeling, they are soon back on their feet.

Also, wrt to the frogs, the small ones can't swallow characters whole. I target shields, weapons and backpacks and maybe the odd familiar with the small ones.

[Lord Fyre]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Re:T1-4. I've run that under 1e, 3.5 and pf1 rules. It's designed for a party of 6-8 characters plus NPCs. From memory, most of encounters in the lower level of the moathouse are around CR7. Between the greater number of characters and negative hit points, lethality is not really a problem - sure 1 or 2 characters go negative during a battle but between the heal skill and positive channeling, they are soon back on their feet.

Also, wrt to the frogs, the small ones can't swallow characters whole. I target shields, weapons and backpacks and maybe the odd familiar with the small ones.

So, if I were to cut down on the number of NPCs things should balance better?

[Hugo Rune]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Hugo Rune wrote:

Re:T1-4. I've run that under 1e, 3.5 and pf1 rules. It's designed for a party of 6-8 characters plus NPCs. From memory, most of encounters in the lower level of the moathouse are around CR7. Between the greater number of characters and negative hit points, lethality is not really a problem - sure 1 or 2 characters go negative during a battle but between the heal skill and positive channeling, they are soon back on their feet.

Also, wrt to the frogs, the small ones can't swallow characters whole. I target shields, weapons and backpacks and maybe the odd familiar with the small ones.

So, if I were to cut down on the number of NPCs things should balance better?

No, just the opposite. 1e had parties of 6-8 characters, plus charisma was tied to the number of henchmen you could employ and then there were hirelings as well. So adventuring parties of 15 or so members were not uncommon. Particularly at the lower levels, many of those would be low level warriors. All of those extra bodies spread the HP around and contribute to the number of attacks that can be made.

[Thedmstrikes]

Philip Dhollander wrote:

I am just kicking of the mega-dungeon "Night Below". An Underdark 2E adventure.

And the true boss monsters and especially the long finale of Book 3 need either an army of NPC's and/or alliances, or wel-equipped smart players. I'm option for option 2.

That being said, where does one post his adventure logs on these forums these days? Been years since I posted on Paizo and a bit lost now :)

If you are designing against generalist characters, there would not be much work other than rebalancing certain encounters, but if you have optimized PCs and experienced players, you may need to re-optimize the bad guys a little more toward any weaknesses the party has. I understand many will find this tactic uncouth, but your setting up a challenge after all so fun can be had by all. Curb stomping everything after a certain level is mostly boring.

I look forward to reading your escapades in campaign journals under gamer life.

FYI, that box set is the cornerstone of my favorite campaign as the DM. I have added many things to it to keep the PCs from straight guessing what is really going on too early...something which will happen with an experienced crew. The last time I ran this, I did not make it to level 10 before we had to break up as I moved on to a new location in 3.5 years. Early on the books, you will not need to add much for XP, but later in the books you will. There is a 3(.5) conversion on ENworld last time I was on those boards, but that has been some years now, so...

[Lord Fyre]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Hugo Rune wrote:

Re:T1-4. I've run that under 1e, 3.5 and pf1 rules. It's designed for a party of 6-8 characters plus NPCs. From memory, most of encounters in the lower level of the moathouse are around CR7. Between the greater number of characters and negative hit points, lethality is not really a problem - sure 1 or 2 characters go negative during a battle but between the heal skill and positive channeling, they are soon back on their feet.

Also, wrt to the frogs, the small ones can't swallow characters whole. I target shields, weapons and backpacks and maybe the odd familiar with the small ones.

So, if I were to cut down on the number of NPCs things should balance better?

No, just the opposite. 1e had parties of 6-8 characters, plus charisma was tied to the number of henchmen you could employ and then there were hirelings as well. So adventuring parties of 15 or so members were not uncommon. Particularly at the lower levels, many of those would be low level warriors. All of those extra bodies spread the HP around and contribute to the number of attacks that can be made.

This is why I was saying that it should not be converted. To convert to Pathfinder is to convert to Pathfinder's base assumption of four heroes (fighter/cleric/mage/thief). I am not sure that the adventure would still work under that assumption.

[Hugo Rune]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

<snip>

This is why I was saying that it should not be converted. To convert to Pathfinder is to convert to Pathfinder's base assumption of four heroes (fighter/cleric/mage/thief). I am not sure that the adventure would still work under that assumption.

It absolutely wouldn't work under that assumption, but that is no reason not to convert it and play it with a larger party.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

...or you can run it for higher level PCs. It sounds like a decent adventure for 4th level PCs now, doesn't it?

Frankly, the most important thing when converting modules is not trying to make it work for PCs of the same level as the original, but for the experience of the adventure. Goodness knows I have to do a lot of work to make them work, but it's the ideas I'm after , not an easily implemented balanced encounter.
For instance I've just started running "Where chaos reigns", which says it's for levels 17-19. This being BECMI, that turns out to be about lvl 10 in 3.x terms (very roughly). Thing is, my PCS are 20th level, so I've had to put in a lot or work not only upgrade the enemies to challenge 20th level PCs, I've also had to rewrite significant portions of the adventure to fit my game, but the core concept of the adventure* is so good it's worth the effort I put in to make it work.

*Time-travelling clone cyborgs from the distant future are erasing important events in the history of magic and magic creatures throughout the timestream to ensure their own creation and dominance.

[Lord Fyre]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

...or you can run it for higher level PCs. It sounds like a decent adventure for 4th level PCs now, doesn't it?

Yes, as a 4th (or even a larger 3rd) level party should be able to do this adventure (and the Temple part that follows more reasonably.) I would need to bump up the treasure, but that is relatively easy.

The "real" work here would be writing the 2-3 adventures needed to get to Level 4 - but that might give some opportunity to introduce the cult of Elemental Evil ahead of time.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

*Time-travelling clone cyborgs from the distant future are erasing important events in the history of magic and magic creatures throughout the timestream to ensure their own creation and dominance.

The adventure writer watched the Terminator movies too many times.

[Hugo Rune]

If you are looking to boost levels, have a look at the computer game, or at least discussions about it. There are lots of low level side adventures in and around Hommlet. Also consider starting the campaign in Verbobonc or Narwell. You could have several urban adventures and then accompany a merchant caravan, which gets set upon by bandits twice. The first time they successfully defeat the bandits but the second time the caravan personnel are forced to retreat leaving the wagons behind. Maybe introduce the Mounted Borderers or the Gnarley Rangers as part of the second battle, who help cover the retreat. The party ends up in Hommlet and are released from their caravan guard duties and are encouraged to hunt down bandit groups. The locals mention the moathouse and how it might be a shelter for bandits.

In one of my campaigns, the second bandit group was Lareth's group and the ghouls were buried in the road so they could paralyse the wagon's horses. The gnolls and bugbears then charged from one flank, driving the personnel off.

[Corathonv2]

DaveMage wrote:

And the amount of critters in the 1E Monster Manual that have save or die poison attacks is quite high.

Almost all monster poison in 1E is save or die - but a cleric or druid with a 2nd level slow poison spell can bring back a character that has been "killed" by poison if applied within a time limit. The restored victim then has a few hours to get the poison neutralized.

Truly, permanently dying to poison after 3rd level is the result of very bad luck or bad play.

[Corathonv2]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Maybe this isn't such a great idea. :(

AD&D (especially early AD&D) had some very different ideas about encounter balancing.

Yes. Not all encounters are supposed to be winnable; sometimes you need to run away, or use guile. And parties are typically larger than in PF, and thus could handle tougher encounters.

[Corathonv2]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

*Time-travelling clone cyborgs from the distant future are erasing important events in the history of magic and magic creatures throughout the timestream to ensure their own creation and dominance.

The adventure writer watched the Terminator movies too many times.

Where Chaos Reigns was released in 1985, so he might've seen the first Terminator movie, but none of the others - unless he was a time-travelling module writer. ;)

[ALLENDM]

I think there is a lot of great advice on the thread. I love the old AD&D 1E modules. I have run a lot of campaigns in PF using them and I am currently running one now on the board.

The big thing to realize, like many have pointed out, that the encounters created in these modules if adapted using a straight conversion would be way overpowered (in most cases). Having played and game mastered them since the late 70's myself I can tell you that most AD&D1E didn't use the 4 PC model and the party was not only a mix of classes but also of levels due to how each class had its own experience ladder. Often fighters, rogues (thieves) were higher level than their magic using counter parts.

When I set up an old AD&D 1E module (or 2E) I look at the plot and the intent of the encounter (and the groups of encounters). Then I adjust from there even if it is a completely different monster/NPC but follows the intent of the module.

First and foremost I typically use a group that is larger than 4. Usually 5 to 6. This gives the party more actions per turn and it also gives the party a bit more variety of martial and magical powers. That way if they lose their Arcane caster they can still fall back on another player with arcane powers. Most AD&D 1E encounters used large number encounters with lesser BBEG included or a overpowered BBEG. There are a few exceptions to this...Saltmarsh is a good example (the BBEG in the house is actually underpowered) when you convert him. Which is why it is important to do these conversions and review them.

What I try to do in most cases is do a straight conversion first and then compare the CR to the group APL.

Then I look at modifying the encounter using the original monster/NPC.

If that doesn't feel right I then look at similar creature in the same Creature Types, then subtypes. Often times if the original encounter if converted is overpowered the moving to a different creature in the same type can alleviate the issue. I always try to find a like creature for the environment in question but toned down.

Is going to a group of lesser creatures/swarms of the same creature type a better option.

If that doesn't fix it then I look at the intent of the encounter, the environment and look at a different creature type. Again using the same set of questions.

IN the Saltmarsh U1 case above the original BBEG in the House was a 3rd level Illusionist. A straight conversion gives you a CR2 and by the time the group gets to that guy they should be APL2. So I ended up making that specific encounter a Wizard/specialty Illusions (Shadow Caster) at 5th level and enhanced his spell list with a some 3PP illusion spells that made him a bit more difficult making him a CR4 encounter by himself. The two gnolls are warrior 2, and the 8 smugglers are warrior 1/expert1 (Smugglers).

The current group is 7 players - APL 3

Ambush at the stairs - 2 gnolls (w2) CR3 (range ambush - fall back to BBEG). (environment/encounter enhanced by BBEG illusion/conjuration spells)

Ambush at the mouth of the cavern - 4 smugglers (w1/e1) CR4 (holding action) (Ambush into Hazard)

Hold the Line in Storage Room - 4 smugglers (w1/e1) CR2 (holding action) (range to melee)

BBEG Encounter - Wizard(I) Shadowcaster Human (wiz5) + 2 gnolls - CR6 (CR4 if BBEG only).

This party works well together and several of the PC's are well run so really they operate as a APL 4 party. Because the encounters are back to back and the wizard can support them it will be a set of tough encounters but this group can handle it.

Which is the other key point. Be ready to modify your encounters to your specific group. It is important to note in the modules (it is often not pointed out) which encounters should be easy, moderate, and tough. Which encounters they should be ready to run from...then give the parties clues to this.

These old modules can be TPK - Buzzsaw's for a groups that don't understand tactics and the benefit of living to fight another day :)

I like to take a module build a spread sheet in excel with every encounter. Note if the encounters are grouped or individual. Look at random encounters (they can greatly change the outcome of encounters). The CR of the encounter and is the party at full strength, 3/4 strength, 1/2 strength, and 1/4 strength. This gives me a good idea if a party is pushing it, needs to consider pulling back, or if I underestimate the parties abilities.

I also always do a pre-encounter to the core model. It lets me get a fill for the group's abilities and encounter design to see if I need to modify up/down.

Jack

[Lord Fyre]

Corathonv2 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

*Time-travelling clone cyborgs from the distant future are erasing important events in the history of magic and magic creatures throughout the timestream to ensure their own creation and dominance.

The adventure writer watched the Terminator movies too many times.

Where Chaos Reigns was released in 1985, so he might've seen the first Terminator movie, but none of the others - unless he was a time-travelling module writer. ;)

Depends ...

Have you seen an old Police Call Box nearby?

[Here4daFreeSwag]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Corathonv2 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

*Time-travelling clone cyborgs from the distant future are erasing important events in the history of magic and magic creatures throughout the timestream to ensure their own creation and dominance.

The adventure writer watched the Terminator movies too many times.

Where Chaos Reigns was released in 1985, so he might've seen the first Terminator movie, but none of the others - unless he was a time-travelling module writer. ;)

Depends ...

Have you seen an old Police Call Box nearby?

Heh, for even more "Ahnuld-cyborgery" goodness, two of the BECMI Blackmoor modules, Temple of the Frog and City of the Gods, are just perfectly suitable for use (both are interconnected storywise in the DM/GM background). ;)

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Blackmoor is pre-Terminator, so if anything Cameron stole from Dave Arneson.
I suppose they both could have been inspired by various other SF of the time, but that doesn't make for as fun an argument.

[Here4daFreeSwag]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Blackmoor is pre-Terminator, so if anything Cameron stole from Dave Arneson.

I suppose they both could have been inspired by various other SF of the time, but that doesn't make for as fun an argument.

Y'know (in all fairness to Arneson and Cameron, of course), judging from Shannon Applecline's commentaries for both modules, it may seem like David J. Ritchie might've had much more influence for the Terminator expy's therein. ;)

And while I'm at it, it has come to my attention that WOTC recently made free some titles of special interest...

Wrath of the Immortals: Bringing the I in BECMI closer to Rules Cyclopedia standard (think Labyrinth Lord, Darkest Dungeon, or the B/X rulesets). Perfect for those that have reached immortality in the Mystara setting.

The Book of Regency: Sourcebook for the AD&D 2e setting of Birthright.

[Here4daFreeSwag]

And there be some more free stuff from WOTC, via DrivethruRPG and an extra from their own website too...

Three-Dragon Ante

To the City of Brass

The World of Krynn Trail Map

The Eastern Countries Trail Map; This one's set in the Known World/Mystara. ;)

Plus something more 5th editiony for those interested in such...

Listed under Play at Home Resources, Unsure Footing: Introductory Mini-Adventure. ;)

[Albion, The Eye]

Philip Dhollander wrote:

I am just kicking of the mega-dungeon "Night Below". An Underdark 2E adventure.

I ran through most of it like 20 years ago when I started playing D&D but we never finished the campaign.

Now, I am picking it up, as GM. And converting it as good as possible to Pathfinder.

I skipped book 1 (my players don't like levels 1-5) so we kicked it off with the absolute end of Book 1 (Garlstone Mines) and we're now going into book 2 after 3 sessions.

Good Times!!! I am not changing the massive treasure haul, so I know full well that my 5 players will have 2,5X the normal equipment by the end of Book 2 (so around level 10). But that is part of the fun for me, and helps with the pacing. They should cut through most of the challenges with relative ease, making for a more-than-one-encounter-per-say play style (which is what we had when we ran it in 2E/3E mode).

And the true boss monsters and especially the long finale of Book 3 need either an army of NPC's and/or alliances, or wel-equipped smart players. I'm option for option 2.

That being said, where does one post his adventure logs on these forums these days? Been years since I posted on Paizo and a bit lost now :)

Just dropping a line to say how much I envy you! :D

That Boxed Set has been sitting in my bookcase for years and years (as part of me being a sucker for 'super' moduled/adventures/campaigns) - unfortunately I never played or DMed it...

[Thedmstrikes]

Albion, The Eye wrote:

That Boxed Set has been sitting in my bookcase for years and years (as part of me being a sucker for 'super' moduled/adventures/campaigns) - unfortunately I never played or DMed it...

You are sooo missing out. I use it as the backdrop to my major home campaign even in the latest incarnation of PF. There is a conversion for 3E/3.5E and it will not take much effort to convert further to PF. I would love to run it again, but I am still breaking in my latest group and we are down players so I am holding out until we are stable since I will not be moving on anytime soon this time...

[Albion, The Eye]

Thanks for hammering the nail further in Thedmstrikes :D

(Wait... I did not know there was a 3.0/3.5 conversion of Night Below... What?)

Not all hope is lost though - I am now in the process of trying to learn D&D5e (finding a game/group and play a bit with it) because I still want to give some older modules a whirl, and many have now been converted to 5e.

So currently I am looking at two options to run/play older modules:

- Go with the conversions already made for 5e (if I like the system);
or
- Go with PF1, taking into account what ALLENDM posted and which resonates with my way of thinking also:

ALLENDM wrote:

Which is the other key point. Be ready to modify your encounters to your specific group. It is important to note in the modules (it is often not pointed out) which encounters should be easy, moderate, and tough. Which encounters they should be ready to run from...then give the parties clues to this.

I do think if reading through the module, you manage get a good grasp of the challenge level which each individual encounter is expected to provide to the players, and you have a good enough system mastery for the one you are running with, then you can get by also with a lot of 'on the fly' adaptation. And if like me you are an old-school DM who rolls behind the DM screen, then it gets easier to adjust encounter challenge up or down.

Other stuff like traps might not be so easy, and you will have to do more work if you want to offer more variability while adjusting encounter challenges (instead of only increasing/decreasing the bad guys' damage/HP/AC/Saves on the fly). But allowing yourself to adapt stuff 'on the go', might greatly diminish the amount of work it takes to prepare an older module for play with newer PF1 rules.

I guess the secret is starting with something simple like a short, older D&D adventure, to test out the waters. Any suggestions?

[DragonKing666]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Have you ever looked at converting AD&D material to Pathfinder? I’ve tried it, I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City and it isn’t as easy as it sounds.

Have others tried to do this?
How will did it work?

I'd love to see a pathfinder conversion of the Yugoloths and planescapes in general. Also a writeup of The Lady of Pain that isn't all infinity symbols and rhetoric. She clearly has weaknesses if Aoskar and Vecna can defy her. Even if she is absurdly powerful.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Some 'loths are already converted officially. The Lady....well, Aoskar defied her and She killed him. Easily.
Die Vecna Die was an abomination of an adventure that should never have made it past brainstorming. It claimed Vecna could do stuff that was already established as impossible, just because he's Vecna (no, his 'loopholes' didn't actually exist).

The Lady doesn't need stats. She was explicitly statless because some people would want stats and try to do something about them. She is who She is and putting numbers to Her just lessens Her. She is just the poster-Lady of Planescape and embodiment of the fact that there's bigger mysteries out there than you can solve and bigger fish than you can kill.