D&D 5E Adapting Old Modules: Question About Level Ranges

Generally, if a module is for levels 4 through 6, let's say, then it's going to be hard for level 4, medium for level 5, and easy for level 6.

That's about all I would attribute to that. Anything more and I agree that perhaps you're overthinking it.

OK. Thanks.

[MENTION=54629]pukunui[/MENTION] barn's have crappy AC and can't stealth for sh*t. Also, fire.

I'd always assumed the level range was how much the characters were expected to level during the adventure, at least on more modern modules. Like something for characters level 5-7, I thought characters were expected to be 5 when they started, and 7 by the time they've finished. Since I often don't use xp, I ran some adventure paths or connected adventure series with that assumption in mind, like a 5-7 adventure roughly halfway I'd tell them they were 6 now, and either at the end or just before final confrontation tell them they're 7.

If someone has some time on their hands, access to some of the old modules, and knowledge of xp progression, they might be able to test. Or disprove if there's a really short adventure that has a wide level range listed.

Edit: Looks like I'm totally off! See [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] 's post a few down.

pukunui said:

Hi all,

I've got a heap of old modules and Dungeon mags, and I've been meaning to adapt some of the adventures to 5e for my homebrew campaign. I haven't always been too sure about what level to use them at, though, and one reason is because of how TSR tended to slap a range of levels on their products.

Since I'm making sure that the PCs in my campaign are all the same level, how should I go about reading those level ranges in terms of appropriateness for my party? Should I take the median? So like, if an AD&D adventure says it's for levels 5-7, should I aim to use it at 6th level? If it says it's for levels 1-3, should I aim for 2nd level?

Or, since many of these old modules were also written with 6-8 PCs in mind (were groups really that big back then?!), should I go for the top level? So if I've got an adventure that's for levels 5-7, should I aim to use it at 7th level since I'll have fewer than the expected number of PCs?

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Jonathan

Click to expand...

My opinion on the matter is grounded on the fact that a conversion of an older edition's adventure implies to use 5e monsters.

So if the adventures features e.g. frost giants, you will use 5e frost giants and it is their CR/level which will determine the level of the adventure. In most cases probably the monster's level is approximately the same as in the old edition. So the point is, if the old adventure says it's level X and it features monsters of level X, when you use the new 5e version of those monsters, if they are still level X then you'll still have a level X adventure.

What can change the overall difficulty further, is the number of monsters per encounter, and the number of encounters between rests. You can use the DMG encounter difficulty guidelines to check if this goes dangerously beyond the nominal adventure level range. In some older adventures there were insanities like 100 monsters at once, but that's not the problem since the PCs are not supposed to fight those upfront; the problem might be instead when the combination of number & level is dangerous, but the encounter doesn't look like that.

So my conclusion in a nutshell would be:

- pick an old adventure with a level range close to your PCs group
- write down the list of encounters, the monsters included and their number
- check the level in 5e of those monsters
- use monster level + number to estimate the encounters difficulty in 5e
- if you see that any encounter is too difficult, either change it a bit (reduce the number of monsters, change the monsters) or consider an increase in the converted adventure's level

This is a hard, thorough way of doing, but if you want a 'light' conversion, you don't need to really go through every single encounter... just identify if there is any monster the level of which is a lot higher than the original (I'd say more than +2) OR if there is any encounter that seems to have a lot of monsters at once.

Or, even simpler, tell your players they will enjoy an old-edition module which can be a bumpy ride. [emoji4]

*Deleted by user*

This has been pretty thoroughly covered by some of the board's more esteemed members, but yes it makes sense. For Saltmarsh specifically, I'd go with 1st level PCs. So, if the range is 5-7 1e, I'd say take the lower number.

One thing to add - while @Li Shenron's method is best way to determine challenge based on creatures, traps or other 'challenges' will be harder to gauge. "Hey, this portcullis that suddenly fell calls for a near perfect bend bars roll! Impossible for a wizard like me to...oh, wait, I'll just cast misty step" or "Oh no! A 'fatal' 100 foot drop for my 10th level fighter! *rolls 10d6* Oh, yeah, I guess that might leave a mark or something"

feartheminotaur said:

One thing to add - while @Li Shenron's method is best way to determine challenge based on creatures, traps or other 'challenges' will be harder to gauge. "Hey, this portcullis that suddenly fell calls for a near perfect bend bars roll! Impossible for a wizard like me to...oh, wait, I'll just cast misty step" or "Oh no! A 'fatal' 100 foot drop for my 10th level fighter! *rolls 10d6* Oh, yeah, I guess that might leave a mark or something"

Click to expand...

You are right, and in fact the reason why I didn't mention anything about gauging the appropriate level of non-combat challenges, is that I am not at all sure there is a good way to gauge, but perhaps there is not even a need.

In older edition typically, the common idea was that every skill check DC need to be forcibly adapted to the PCs current level. However doing so achieved nothing, because while it affects the chances of success on a single task, the consequences on the story are what really matters, and they don't normally depend on the DC (except when you use degrees of success). IMHO in 5e there's a different feeling about non-combat challenges: that it is better to think of how they are part of the story, and use standard DCs based on narrative (e.g. type of lock to pick, type of wall to climb). In other words, it doesn't matter if you put an easy (DC 10) stone wall or an extremely hard (DC 25) ice wall against your level 5 party; what matters is what happens around that task (before and after), what is the penalty for failure or the benefit of success.

Great point. That distinction, the change towards 'why is this here?' of modern module construction from the older module's 'it's just here to be here', is really important to consider. TSR adventures, especially dungeons, had so many challenges that seem perfunctory, as if there has to be a trap or something here, reasoning be damned (although, to be fair, I think a high percentage of published adventures across most systems do that).

That 'everything could be a challenge for no reason' is why my long time group has been conditioned to think every lock is trapped, touching anything is deadly, and every section of wall hides a secret door, which is amusing at least