4th to 5th Edition Converters - What has been your experience?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just quoted the above build here.



Hrmmm...let me see. A 12th level Barbarian has 3 ASIs. If one feat (GWM) that becomes 2, if two feats (Sentinel), that becomes 1.

Human Totem Barbarian with Standard Array is:

15, 14, 16, 9, 13, 11. Assume you go 3 ASIs instead of feats. You put the 16 in Con. You put the 15 in Str and the 14 in Dex. ASI you go Con > Con > split Str/and the 13 (probably Wis).

Your Unarmored Defense AC is then 10 + 5 + 2 = 17. I guess if you aren't going GWF then you're going to want a shield. Shield +1 gets you to that AC 20.

You're HPs are another +2/level for 144ish with halved damage.

Weapon +2 nets you +4 (Prof) +3 (Str) + 2 (Ench) = +9 hit @ d8 +3 (Str) +3 (Rage) +2 (Enc) = 13.5 ave damage @ 80 % hit rate * 2 attacks.

This guy is beefy no doubt. However...

He can't go Reckless Attack against this number of enemies (return is terrible and the cost is significant). His offense is not great. There is a fairly strong chance this guy is only killing one enemy per round.

He isn't sticky at all. He literally has no melee control. At 14th level, prone as Bonus Action comes online. Good stuff. But 0 control without feats.

The main deal here though is the Wolf Totem Warrior effect. That would give the GWF Advantage on most attacks. That plus Bless will turn the Fighter into a terror.

I assumed he would be built as a 2H weapon berserker with control, but we can go with this I suppose.

Now the Human Champion Fighter, assume something like:

16, 13, 15, 11, 9, 14. GWF + HAM + PAM + 2 ASI; +2 Str > +1 Str/Con. +1 Plate for 19 AC. +2 Halberd/Glaive.

With Tunnel Stalker, GWF, PAM, +5 Str, +2 polearm, Advantage on most attacks (Wolf Totem Barb) and Bless, this guy is your melee control and meat-grinder. Also -3 damage per/attack due to HAM.

---

I'm still seeing 30 % and 35 % hit rates against these guys. And again, if the Barbarian goes to a build that is more effective in this scenario (IMO and especially so with the cleric in play here), he is going to be hit on a 10 - 12 (12 if the rare magic item becomes Bracers of Defense rather than +2 weapon).

Also, if they aren't keeping up with the waves (which seems very possible at some point with the above builds), the prospects for Help Actions (or Help + Grapple) by the Orcs goes up which could possibly turn into problem (that the cleric would have to bail them out of, assuming it isn't in trouble itself as the "reapers" get behind).



I think a fair bit of it depends on the control here. I don't like this Barbarian build above (no control and paltry offense...basically blocking terrain, a buff-bot, and maybe averaging taking out 1 of the 4 orcs). You put two warriors who can (a) be blocking terrain, (b) make the melee sticky and punish foes who violate their control, and (c) have the offensive output to keep up with the waves without being overrun, it becomes doable.

If a - c fall apart, the orcs overrun the town, or waylay (and possibly kill) the cleric (even though a War Cleric is so stout), become too many in number rendering the DPR input too significant to keep up with...or a combination of the above.

But I think with the right builds (sub defensive Barb for offensive one without Reckless Attack), a - c can be maintained and the Cleric can sustain the two reaping juggernauts for a long, long time.

If I can find some time, I'm going to impose my will on one of my players to run this with a War or Life Cleric.



I still see the hit rate being higher than the 25 %. I think 30/35 or better (assuming an offensive Barbarian) is more realistic.

Also, consider the default sticky melee in AD&D.

Also, while the 1 attack/character level wouldn't apply to orcs, they would apply to most all canon fodder in AD&D.

Finally, consider the AD&D 2e Fighter. The Heroic Fray rules extend that to Level - 10 in HD so it would apply to orcs for level 12 Fighters. And the AD&D 2e weapon spec train had one destination; pain. I feel pretty confident that both the AD&D 1e and the AD&D 2e Fighter would soundly defeat the 5e analogue in this scenario.

I've never even HEARD of 'Heroic Fray' and I ran 10 years of 2e, so that tells you something of my general contempt for 2e supplements (almost universal garbage and not IMHO to be considered as a normal part of the game, though if you invoke some of the 'Complete' series stuff I'm not quite so opposed, most of that is under-powered though). Weapon specialization will help the 2e fighters insomuch as they gain in attacks per round, and they could also dual wield, etc. AD&D fighters are also VERY magic item dependent. The results could vary drastically depending on item loadout.

As a somewhat extreme example my 14th level Ranger (built in 1e, but I think 2e was in force by then) had vampiric regeneration and some other stupid tricks. He would literally GAIN hit points in this scenario and could fight forever, or until the GM ruled otherwise. In fact if you replaced the orcs with ogres he'd actually GAIN from the exchange (more hit points to reap faster and higher damage output). Make them Demogorgon worshippers, his sworn enemy, and you'd have to count the ogre deaths on 2 hands every round. Pairing him with a cleric and another melee combatant would be redundant. We actually played out basically this scenario, it wasn't pretty. I think we finally decided the bad guys gave up after I hit about 5000 hit points.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think it's generally true IME that the pre-3e* Fighter will kill more mooks than the 5e Fighter at the same level. It's equally true that the pre-3e Magic-User will kill more more mooks than the 5e Wizard at the same level. I don't think Orcs are an ideal comparison though; pre-3e Orcs are baseline mooks, whereas 3e-4e-5e Orcs are 'savage barbarian' Orcs. The role of the pre-3e Orc is more akin to the 5e CR 1/8 stuff - Guard or Bandit or Tribal Warrior stats.

*1e RAW evaluation is so dependent on the 1 hd breakpoint for 'attacks=level' that I don't think it's a good comparison. Personally I run both a Classic D&D game with 8th-11th level PCs and a 5e game with 12th-14th level PCs, and I'd say they work out very similarly - though the 5e numbers are bigger, things go down about the same. The 5e players probably feel slightly more threatened by encountering a large numbers of enemies than the Classic players, but they trash them ok all the same.

Yup.

He has the same Control as any 5e PC: he gets a free attack as a Reaction when a foe leaves his Reach, and he can block a 5' wide space. If he wants to be Horatio on the 15' wide bridge, he needs a couple friends. At lower level especially my group would retreat from bands of orcs (etc) and seek a choke point to hold them off.

Honestly, this is core to my premise that I was initially putting forth. AD&D, 3.x, 4e all had universally sticky melee at all times and for all combatants involved in a melee skirmish via varying mechanics (or layers of mechanics). 5e has changed this paradigm thus removing a significant amount of consistent melee control in the default engine. That is a considerable nerf in power/means/agency to melee combatants that must assume the defender/tank role.

I know their reasoning behind it (hopefully to provide mobile combats but without an onerous amount of overhead/decision-points for the players to facilitate this) and I presume to know their "fix"; give the GM further agency in play outcomes by having them fudge it by way of intentionally not taking advantage of the lack of melee stickiness inherent to the combat engine.

Giving the Fighter the Tunnel Stalker style is basically re-empowering them with the default sticky melee (and the control that comes with it) that was a significant legacy mechanic that all melee combatants enjoyed in the past. It doesn't give them a 4e Fighter's melee control (via their suite of resources and features), but regaining that default stickiness is no small thing. Especially in the scenario carved out above.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup.



Honestly, this is core to my premise that I was initially putting forth. AD&D, 3.x, 4e all had universally sticky melee at all times and for all combatants involved in a melee skirmish via varying mechanics (or layers of mechanics). 5e has changed this paradigm thus removing a significant amount of consistent melee control in the default engine. That is a considerable nerf in power/means/agency to melee combatants that must assume the defender/tank role.

I know their reasoning behind it (hopefully to provide mobile combats but without an onerous amount of overhead/decision-points for the players to facilitate this) and I presume to know their "fix"; give the GM further agency in play outcomes by having them fudge it by way of intentionally not taking advantage of the lack of melee stickiness inherent to the combat engine.

Giving the Fighter the Tunnel Stalker style is basically re-empowering them with the default sticky melee (and the control that comes with it) that was a significant legacy mechanic that all melee combatants enjoyed in the past. It doesn't give them a 4e Fighter's melee control (via their suite of resources and features), but regaining that default stickiness is no small thing. Especially in the scenario carved out above.

I STILL want someone to prove to me that there's even the most elementary level of 'stickiness' to an AD&D character (fighter or whatnot is irrelevant). The ONE fragment of rule that all this is hung on simply states that if someone 'flees' then their opponent gets to make an immediate rear attack on them, and there's some additional fairly fuzzy statement about being able to 'withdraw', which MAY be construed as something like characters control some undefined amount of space around them. It is NEVER defined what constitutes becoming engaged, and there's NO HINT AT ALL of anything like an "OA" or "passing attack" or any such parlance that would constitute a mechanic for punishing or forcing to stop anyone going past you. Its PRETTY clear that a character occupies some sort of 'frontage' and you can't simply pass through that area without displacing the enemy BUT EVEN THAT ISN'T SPELLED OUT.

Even a generous interpretation of the AD&D rules doesn't warrant "I can make everyone that passes within my maximum weapon reach stop and engage me and suffer an 'OA' if they leave." which seems to be how people are trying to portray it here. What is warranted, at best, might allow 3 characters to each engage and stop one enemy. Any opponents beyond that are free to maneuver as they please!

5e likewise lacks definitive rules on just what amount of space you can physically block and deny passage through. At least in 5e you have AN OA and possibly other explicit reactions to enemy movement. Its still HARD for a fighter that hasn't spent any resources on it to hold down even one opponent, let alone two or more. Frankly a 4e cleric is stickier than any 5e character, and they are both stickier than the most parsimonious interpretation of an AD&D character.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's equally true that the pre-3e Magic-User will kill more more mooks than the 5e Wizard at the same level.

How so? Their fireballs aren't any bigger, and an 8 hp orc saving for half vs a 70 hp fireball isn't any deader than an 11 hp orc saving for half vs a 32 point one. OK, maybe some of the old-school high level spells, like Incendiary Cloud had more outrageous AEs

*1e RAW evaluation is so dependent on the 1 hd breakpoint for 'attacks=level' that I don't think it's a good comparison.

Goblins, then?

You COULD use swarms for certain niches, but how many individuals make up a swarm? There's no exact answer to that. Beyond that you could make some sort of 'terrain' out of it, maybe even some 'terrain powers'. Beyond THAT you're just into SC territory where everything is abstracted.

Whatever seems reasonable. I ran swarms a few times that were essentially 'made of minions' when you destroyed the swarm, some minions were left rattling around, one time it was even swarm & minions, and the swarm would absorb adjacent minions, or spawn minions when affected by involuntary movement.

Three characters faced with an endless minion generator, with the mission to stave them off as long as possible. That's DEFINITELY an SC, and its going to be a lot more dramatic than standing in the gateway endlessly repeating the same 3 actions. At the end the GM could easily flavor it as killing 50 minions for every success, or whatever.

Unless one of them can just put an auto-damaging zone around the minion-generator, of course. ;P

I STILL want someone to prove to me that there's even the most elementary level of 'stickiness' to an AD&D character (fighter or whatnot is irrelevant). The ONE fragment of rule that all this is hung on simply states that if someone 'flees' then their opponent gets to make an immediate rear attack on them

Yep, ye ol' "parting shot," the primeval AoO. That's it. That and 'fighter walls' spanning the 10x10 corridor. Also, IMHO/X, there was a unwritten rule sort of convention among many DMs that many monsters would instinctively attack the 'obvious threat' - the biggest/toughest looking PC, typically a fighter. No mechanics, nor even logic, behind it, as the greatest threat with the old dude in the pointy hat, but I recall doing that (and, as a frequent MU player, benefiting from it) a lot back in the day.

and there's some additional fairly fuzzy statement about being able to 'withdraw', which MAY be construed as something like characters control some undefined amount of space around them.

A vaguely remember something about a fighting withdraw, yes, just backing away, the enemy could always charge you unless they were super slow or decided to let you got, though.

Its PRETTY clear that a character occupies some sort of 'frontage' and you can't simply pass through that area without displacing the enemy BUT EVEN THAT ISN'T SPELLED OUT.

But it is pretty clear. Of course, there were also overbearing attacks.

Even a generous interpretation of the AD&D rules doesn't warrant "I can make everyone that passes within my maximum weapon reach stop and engage me and suffer an 'OA' if they leave." which seems to be how people are trying to portray it here.

Agreed. Enemies can run right past you in 1e, if there's room. This might be one case where using a weapon with a large 'space requirement' just might help you?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Unless one of them can just put an auto-damaging zone around the minion-generator, of course. ;P

Right, so getting to it would obviously become the challenge at that point...

Yep, ye ol' "parting shot," the primeval AoO. That's it. That and 'fighter walls' spanning the 10x10 corridor. Also, IMHO/X, there was a unwritten rule sort of convention among many DMs that many monsters would instinctively attack the 'obvious threat' - the biggest/toughest looking PC, typically a fighter. No mechanics, nor even logic, behind it, as the greatest threat with the old dude in the pointy hat, but I recall doing that (and, as a frequent MU player, benefiting from it) a lot back in the day.

A vaguely remember something about a fighting withdraw, yes, just backing away, the enemy could always charge you unless they were super slow or decided to let you got, though.

But it is pretty clear. Of course, there were also overbearing attacks.

Agreed. Enemies can run right past you in 1e, if there's room. This might be one case where using a weapon with a large 'space requirement' just might help you?

Yeah, its not clear that the 'space requirement' is ALSO a "can block this much space" factor. In fact there's no real evidence to support the notion that it was supposed to work that way. I can attest that in the OLD days, pre-1980 D&D play, that it was considered normal to require 3 fighters abreast to block a 10' corridor. If they had large (IE 2-handed) weapons, then we usually decided you could block 2 abreast vs 3. I know of no rule for any of this, though AD&D does clearly introduce an amount of 'frontage', the space required, that you MUST have.

But beyond that is all mystery. There's NOTHING that defines what the criteria are for someone to be considered 'engaged'. Does it mean "came within weapon reach (and is that = to space required) of an opponent"? Perhaps... Can an opponent specify some sort of enhanced area of control via some statement like "I will stop anyone from passing" and how would that actually operate mechanically? Can a character engage more than one opponent? Can he make more than one "parting shot"? NONE of this is defined.

2e DOES indeed introduce grapple and overbear as additional factors, though the rules implementing them are so laughably unworkable as to effectively not exist. Presumably you could also adjudicate "rushing" (IE like a charge but with the idea of just pushing people or going past them) but you'd have to decide how to rule that.

The problem is that AD&D's combat system is actually ENTIRELY a 'narrative' sort of system. It isn't made up of any kind of comprehensive rules framework. Its more like a 'chocolate chip cookie', there's a lot rules embedded in there, but most of the bulk of the thing is actually just a sort of unspoken "make it work". So the answer to "can I just go right by the orc blocking the door" is "No, how would that be possible, describle it narratively and THEN we'll know if its allowed" The ultimate point being, you can't talk about what characters can and cannot do in AD&D combat. It is literally not a topic of objective discussion because AD&D doesn't HAVE combat rules. It has some disjoint systems that can be used together to produce a combat narrative, but its not rules in anything like the way 3e, 4e or even 5e (mostly) mean by rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

2e DOES indeed introduce grapple and overbear as additional factors, though the rules implementing them are so laughably unworkable as to effectively not exist. Presumably you could also adjudicate "rushing" (IE like a charge but with the idea of just pushing people or going past them) but you'd have to decide how to rule that.

The 1e DMG had its own baroque Pummeling, Grappling, & Overbearing rules, too. Even the 1e PH had a cryptic example of overbearing in an example of play.

It is literally not a topic of objective discussion because AD&D doesn't HAVE combat rules. It has some disjoint systems that can be used together to produce a combat narrative, but its not rules in anything like the way 3e, 4e or even 5e (mostly) mean by rules.

That's funny considering how rules-dense/rule-for-everything AD&D seemed at the time. Not, I guess, entirely untrue, though. I will grant that using variants in 1e was so common that 'what you could do in AD&D' according to the rules is pretty academic.

 

[S'mon]

I know their reasoning behind it (hopefully to provide mobile combats but without an onerous amount of overhead/decision-points for the players to facilitate this) and I presume to know their "fix"; give the GM further agency in play outcomes by having them fudge it by way of intentionally not taking advantage of the lack of melee stickiness inherent to the combat engine.

Yeah, pretty much. Especially with ToTM The GM just has to adjudicate something
sensible in terms of number of opponents who can attack PCs each round, Usually this
means no conga lines of doom, though last session I did have barbarian cavalry do
ride-by attacks on the PCs; I'd allow around 4 per side so ca 8/round max. I reckoned that's
about what would happen with minis, 10'x10' horses moving 60'/rd, etc.

 

[S'mon]

How so? Their fireballs aren't any bigger, and an 8 hp orc saving for half vs a 70 hp fireball isn't any deader than an 11 hp orc saving for half vs a 32 point one. OK, maybe some of the old-school high level spells, like Incendiary Cloud had more outrageous AEs

Well my experience of 1e was that high level MUs would have wands and staves with
close to 100 charges (81-100 was standard as I recall) including especially wands of
fireballs. They would fly invisibly (UA improved invisibility) over the battlefield, protected from normal missiles, raining down dozens of fireballs. I think they also have more high level spell
slots for large scale destructive effects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well my experience of 1e was that high level MUs would have wands and staves with
close to 100 charges (81-100 was standard as I recall) including especially wands of
fireballs.

OK, there is that. Not only were the random magic items a bit more generous than in 5e, charged items like that were something PCs could make at only highish level (starting ~9-11, IIRC).

I think they also have more high level spell slots for large scale destructive effects.

At very high levels, yes, though they're also not necessarily going to have had them all filled with such things, while 5e neo-Vancian is spontaneous, so all you need is one such spell.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well my experience of 1e was that high level MUs would have wands and staves with
close to 100 charges (81-100 was standard as I recall) including especially wands of
fireballs. They would fly invisibly (UA improved invisibility) over the battlefield, protected from normal missiles, raining down dozens of fireballs. I think they also have more high level spell
slots for large scale destructive effects.

hehe, yeah, my go-to level 14 wizard had, IIRC, a pair of wings (gained via GW1e mutation, don't ask), a Staff of the Magi, Cloak of Displacement, enough rings, bracers, etc to have a substantial AC, a Robe of Eyes, and a fairly extensive collection of wands, potions, scrolls, and various other magic items, most of which I really can't recall off the top of my head. Flying Improved Invisibly, Stoneskinned, with Protection from Normal Missiles, and loaded for bear would be a very bad day even for a demon lord.

Without the items though? I think my current 5e Dwarf Wizard raised up to 14th would be a good match. He's a LOT tougher, and though his spell book is technically somewhat smaller he can actually afford to memorize a wider variety of spells. The 5e spells individually are maybe a bit less wide-open in some respects, but you still have awesomely insane stuff like Polymorph (Poof you're a toad!) and such.